House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
As you quite rightly point out, Mr Speaker, football is indeed coming home. I cannot possibly understand why attendance is so scant on the Government Benches this morning.
The Government regularly commission research across the United Kingdom to understand public attitudes in order to inform and help to deliver relevant policies, and to ensure that we have strong, UK-wide, cross-Government communications campaigns.
Allan Dorans
Last month, the first-tier tribunal on information rights ruled that the Cabinet Office must release polling information that it has gathered on attitudes to the Union in Scotland within a month. Will the Minister confirm that he will be releasing that information, as he has been ordered to do, and whether he will also release the details on how much that information cost to collect?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman refers to a case that was brought to the first-tier tribunal by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). We are reviewing how we can comply with the first-tier tribunal’s judgment.
Marion Fellows
In the Chamber last month, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) astutely summarised, speaking of his own Tory UK Government:
“When the Government do not publish something, it is normally because it is bad news and they are trying to hide it away.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 761.]
Will the Minister say whether that holds true for his Department’s intended-to-be-secret polling on the Union? If it does not and the Union is indeed as strong as he and his ministerial colleagues agree, what reason do the Government have for fighting the release of this information for years?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). He is a former Chief Whip, and, as a member of that broederbond, I know that there can sometimes be a tendency to prefer discretion rather than transparency, but in my current role I am all in favour of transparency. Indeed, we do not need to look anywhere other than the current public opinion polls, which show that support for independence is declining and support for the United Kingdom is increasing.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The High Court ruling by Justice O’Farrell concluded that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster acted with “apparent bias” in the “unlawful” action when he awarded contracts to his chums at Public First, who had previously worked as advisers to him, to the Prime Minister and, of course, for Dominic Cummings. How can the Minister justify siphoning off many tens of thousands of pounds from covid recovery work to fund this highly political research, which is obviously designed to inform the no campaign in the next independence referendum?
Michael Gove
I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but Lady Justice O’Farrell did not find that I had operated with any form of bias—apparent, actual or otherwise. That is a misreading of the court judgment.
The Scottish Government have received more than £180 million from the UK Government in covid recovery funds and it is not yet the case that the Scottish Government have published how a penny of that money is being spent, so before asking for greater transparency from this Government, I think it would be appropriate if the hon. Gentleman were to ask his colleagues in the Scottish Government to publish accounts for every single penny that has been received and how it has been spent so that we can be assured—as I am sure will be the case—that the Scottish Government have used their resources appropriately to fight covid.
Stewart Hosie
The question was about the Minister’s actions, not about anyone else. It would be better if he paid attention to his own work. Given that we already know attitudes, and that, over time, support for independence has risen considerably and support for the Union has declined, is it not more than passing strange that the Minister was so desperate to hand Public First these contracts without competitive tender, were there not to be a second independence referendum? But, more importantly, given that the contract was not restricted to immediately required work, is it not hugely suspicious that such subterfuge was used to funnel taxpayers’ money so quickly to Public First, effectively using taxpayers’ cash as a bottomless Unionist slush fund?
Michael Gove
A bottomless Unionist slush fund sounds like a great thing, but unfortunately it does not exist. I am afraid that I refer the hon. Gentleman again to the judgment. The contract was not awarded by me and it is not the case that I was found to have acted with any actual or apparent bias, because I did not award the contract. I recommend that he has a close look at what Lady Justice O’Farrell actually concluded.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez) [V]
As we set out in the declaration on Government reform last month, we are deeply committed to investing in training across the whole civil service, as we have to do better at providing public servants with the skills they need to serve others and tackle future challenges. Our new Government Skills and Curriculum Unit is in the process of establishing a campus for Government skills and will be focusing on creating a cross-civil service induction, a data masterclass for senior civil servants and transforming the fast stream so that it remains among the best graduate schemes in the world.
Bob Blackman [V]
Clearly, there is a time and a place for employing contractors and other consultants, but does my hon. Friend agree that alongside that we have to provide better training for civil servants and better recruitment of individuals with the skills that are needed by the civil service so that they can be retained within the civil service as a preference to its spending considerable sums of money on outside consultants and communication firms?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his important and incisive question. The civil service, as he acknowledges, has historically used contractors to provide specialist skills and to manage short-term requirements. We really want to drive that down by improving our own capability. We are developing a pipeline of secondments into major organisations through a new secondments unit. We are building an in-house consultancy, we are creating a civilian reserve, and we are working with the Civil Service Commission to review how we attract entrants with specific high-demand skills, particularly scientists and engineers.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Levelling up is at the heart of the Government’s covid recovery agenda, and I am in daily contact with Cabinet colleagues. Through the levelling up fund, we have already committed £4.8 billion of support for local projects that will spur regional growth and improve the lives of local people across the whole United Kingdom. Later this year we will publish a levelling up White Paper.
Mrs Miller [V]
If you are in a low-paid job in our country, you are still more likely to be a woman than a man. That is no good for a country that values aspiration, no good for productivity and no good for our economy. Given the focus at the G7 on equal opportunity for women at work, will the Government’s White Paper on levelling up recognise this problem and focus on levelling up for women throughout the United Kingdom?
Michael Gove
As a distinguished former Equalities Minister and former Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: more must be done as part of levelling in order to ensure that women have the opportunities that they deserve and are paid fairly, and that we make use of everyone’s talents across the whole United Kingdom.
Jacob Young
The Tees valley is already beginning to see the Government’s levelling up agenda in action through its plans for the northern economic campus in Darlington, the UK’s largest freeport in Redcar, and the continued work in collaboration between the UK Government and Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen. When will we start to see the civil service jobs relocated to the Tees valley, and does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to cut train services between Teesside and London at a time when our area is growing again?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention Ben Houchen, the Gareth Southgate of local government. It is appropriate that, as the Treasury and the Department for International Trade are recruiting new roles in Darlington and there is more investment in Teesside, we must make sure that we have proper connectivity, including first-class rail travel as well as improved digital connectivity.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. The Government’s levelling up agenda is laudable, and in Clacton some progress has been made. I am doing the best I can to inform residents in the area of what the Government are doing. There is a feeling of being left behind locally, however, so what are the Government doing to communicate more widely what they have been and will be doing for the people of Clacton and other left-behind communities? Will my right hon. Friend come back to the sunshine coast and join me to raise awareness of the Government’s important work?
Michael Gove
I absolutely will. There is nothing left behind about Clacton and Frinton and the communities that my hon. Friend so ably represents, and I look forward to visiting them. I understand that there is a fantastic local community theatre that he has played a part in championing, among many other local endeavours. Levelling up is about culture as well as connectivity. I look forward to coming to Clacton and making sure that it is firmly on the map and at the centre of our levelling up plans.
Sir David Evennett [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ambitious plans for levelling up are for the whole of the UK, including London and its economy, which has been especially badly hit by the pandemic?
Michael Gove
My right hon Friend is absolutely right. He is a brilliant advocate for south-east London and for business. I look forward to working with him to ensure that there is improved connectivity and that London, which has suffered particularly badly as a result of the pandemic, is at the heart of our plans for economic recovery.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
Labour believes that it should be an explicit priority of this Government that when it comes to public procurement we should be buying more from British companies. In the Government’s document, “National Infrastructure and Construction Procurement Pipeline 2020/21”, the procurement contracts in the pipeline are worth £37 billion. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell the House how much of this was awarded to British companies? If not, what does that say about the Government’s priorities for British business?
Michael Gove
I am delighted beyond words that the hon. Lady believes that we should procure more, buy more and invest more in Britain. All that is now possible as a result of our departure from the European Union and our liberation from its procurement rules. The procurement Green Paper brought forward by my noble Friend Lord Agnew will ensure that more UK businesses—more Scottish businesses, Welsh businesses and Ulster businesses—get Government pounds to do even better for all our citizens.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez) [V]
Accounting officer system statements already set out which public bodies a Department is responsible for, and their spending is set out in each Department’s annual report and accounts. Public bodies data is also published in the public bodies directory. The recent declaration on Government reform reasserts our commitment to transparency in government. The declaration includes specific commitments on public bodies, including increasing the effectiveness of departmental sponsorship of arm’s length bodies.
Neale Hanvey
As legislators, we have an important and indeed necessary relationship with upholding the spirit and the letter of the law. However, in my experience hon. Members seem more likely to be sacked for their attempts to uphold such a principle. What message does the continued opacity, prevarication and law-breaking of this Government’s most senior Ministers and advisers give to our children, public bodies and industry, or does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster simply have no shame over his own unlawful conduct?
Mr Speaker
Order. We do need to try to keep it calm and be more temperate in our language.
Julia Lopez
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your comments on language in this House. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of this Government. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already set out, there is a nuanced judgment from the Public First case in particular which does not agree with the way the hon. Member has characterised how the Government conduct themselves.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It would appear that my lack of donations to the Conservative party makes my chances of becoming a Government non-executive director rather slim, but my question to the Minister today is this: how many non-executive directors currently in post on those Government Department boards to scrutinise Ministers were appointed by Ministers? Will the Minister commit to overhauling that current system for appointing non-executive directors, so that these roles stop just being cushy jobs for friends of Ministers who are being paid over £1,000 a day each of taxpayers’ money?
Julia Lopez
I can speak for the Cabinet Office non-executive directors. We have a fantastic team that is drawn from across party political affiliations. She will be aware that we have Baroness Stuart, who is a former Labour Member. We also have people with no political affiliation whatever, including people such as Anand Aithal. We have Henry de Zoete, and we have Lord Hogan-Howe, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They were appointed because of their merit, not because of their party political affiliation.
Fleur Anderson
I think that made my point for me, thank you.
Last month, an Information Tribunal said that there is
“a profound lack of transparency about the operation”
of the freedom of information clearing house. Can the Minister confirm categorically that every single freedom of information request received has been treated in exactly the same way, with no different approach for certain journalists or campaigners?
Julia Lopez
I can confirm that we treat those information requests on a case-by-case basis, and the background of who is asking is not a criterion for how we treat that request.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The placement of security cameras in Departments is a matter for each individual Department.
Clive Efford
This issue came to light because of a bit of kiss and tell, and I am not really interested in that, but it does bring out the question of just exactly who has access to this sort of surveillance and the security of Government. When can we expect some sort of a response from the Government to explain just exactly what has been going on?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman raises an important and serious issue. The permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office and the head of the Government Security Group are looking at precisely this question because, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, it has a bearing on the security of Government business, and indeed on the possibility of malicious actors, abroad or elsewhere, who may wish to use information garnered in that way to work against the interests of all our citizens.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
We regularly assess contingency plans and preparedness for major risks, including pandemics. In December 2020, we updated the national risk register to include new risks. We are currently reviewing the Government’s national risk assessment methodology with external partners ahead of refreshing the internal national security risk assessment early next year.
Ellie Reeves [V]
Exercise Cygnus, carried out in 2016, found:
“The UK’s preparedness and response, in terms of its plans, policies and capability, is currently not sufficient to cope with the extreme demands of a severe pandemic”.
Key recommendations from the exercise on surge capacity, school closures and protecting care homes were not acted on, which ultimately led to the Government’s chaotic handling of covid-19. Given that the warning signs had been identified in this report, why did the Government handle the pandemic so woefully, and what is being done now to prevent this from ever happening again?
Penny Mordaunt
The flaw with Exercise Cygnus was with regard to the risk methodology that sat behind it, and I have given evidence to a number of Select Committees on that basis. The hon. Member will know that we have rectified that now by changing the methodology, so rather than just focus on high-risk situations that would have an incredible detrimental impact and are likely to happen, we also look at situations that would have such an impact but are less likely to happen. It is not just pandemics we have to prepare for; it is a whole raft of possible events. I think that methodology and the new risk register put us in a much stronger position.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Cabinet Office Ministers regularly engage with the Welsh Government and all the devolved Administrations as part of the Government’s continued collaborative working arrangements. I have had recent discussions with Welsh Government Ministers on subjects such as covid-19, the G7 summit and, of course, elections. Since 2021, all ministerial engagements between the Governments of the United Kingdom are published in quarterly reports.
Alun Cairns [V]
The Welsh Government recently proposed the most radical constitutional change for the whole of the United Kingdom, seeking to change our Union of four nations to a federal structure. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he was part of those discussions in any way, in view of the impact they would have for every part of the United Kingdom? Does he share my dismay that the Welsh Government are focusing on constitutional change during a covid pandemic when our focus must be on recovering healthcare, improving education standards and creating jobs? Does he agree that our Union of four nations and constitutional stability offer the best prospect of delivering those outcomes?
Michael Gove
Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have the highest regard for the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, and I enjoy working with him. I do not doubt his commitment to public service, but we do disagree on this question. I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Welsh Government’s focus, as the UK Government’s focus is, should be wholly on the covid crisis and on economic recovery at this time.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Department continues to work with the Health Secretary on these issues. When we set out the details of step 4 regarding those who are immunosuppressed, there will be new guidance that GPs will be able to use when working with those patients.
Duncan Baker
My constituent Sue Gresham is a tireless campaigner for all those who are immunosuppressed, and she has raised this many times. It was highlighted just last week that those with blood cancer feel there is little information being given about the efficacy of the vaccine being lower for the immunosuppressed. It would be very reassuring if my right hon. Friend could tell me that the Government will write urgently to everyone in the UK whose medical condition requires immuno-suppression to advise that they may not be protected and what precautions they can take themselves as we unlock.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for all the work she has done on these matters. I can say to my hon. Friend that we are in a much better position because of the work that we have previously done on shielding and gathering data on people who might need further protections. In addition to the new guidance I announced for GPs, there is obviously work going on with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, particularly focused on that group to ensure that they are a priority for receiving booster injections.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government are committed to relocating 22,000 civil service roles from London by the end of the decade. Our “Places for Growth” portfolio is a vehicle to ensure that between now and 2030 the civil service becomes better connected with the people and communities it serves. A number of Departments have already made announcements about relocation, and further announcements will be made in due course.
Peter Gibson [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Whether because of the 750 civil service jobs in the Treasury, the 500 senior civil servants from the Department for International Trade or the 100 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy officials, the Westminster-on-Tees new economic campus is set to be a busy place. Does he agree that moving civil service jobs outside London is vital to ensuring that communities across the country are reflected in national policy decisions?
Michael Gove
“100%”, as they say on “Love Island”. My hon. Friend is completely right. We must ensure that we make use of the fantastic local talent that there is in the north-east and County Durham so that people whose voices have not been heard loudly enough in the corridors of power are properly represented.
Mr Holden
I welcome the moves to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), but the new joint administration just up the road in County Durham has been left high and dry with a £50 million county hall bequeathed to it by the previous Labour administration. To prevent it from becoming an enormous white elephant—a totem to Labour’s hubris in its administration of County Durham for over 100 years—will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the new joint administration in Durham County Council to explore all the possibilities that this new facility might have?
Michael Gove
I absolutely will. It is horrific that so much public money has been misused by the former Labour administration in Durham County Council and that the people of that county have been so poorly served. I will of course absolutely investigate that, but I should say that if it was a choice between Durham and Consett for the relocation of Government jobs, I would choose Consett every time.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez) [V]
The UK spends £290 billion on public procurement each year. Now that we have left the EU transition period we want to make it simpler, quicker and cheaper for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises to bid for Government contracts, as set out in our ambitious procurement Green Paper. We have already introduced a policy that will allow below-threshold contracts to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers, and we hope that our new approach to social value will secure wider public benefit, allowing us to contract with firms that deliver more apprenticeships, local growth opportunities and environmental benefits.
Henry Smith [V]
Many companies in Crawley and across the UK have been forced to adapt because of the covid-19 pandemic. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should have greater opportunity and access to bidding for Government contracts over outside competition?
Julia Lopez
I agree with my hon. Friend. We want a much greater variety of companies, including those in Crawley, to deliver Government contracts from every corner of our country, not just because it benefits local economies and communities but because it helps us to diversify our risk, create a more resilient supply base and deliver some of our critical priorities. We are going to be requiring contracts to be divided into smaller lots, publishing contract pipelines more transparently, and improving our guidance to small businesses that are looking to bid.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Voter fraud is a crime that we cannot allow room for, and we must stamp out any potential for it to take place in elections. Strengthening the integrity of our system will give the public confidence that our elections remain secure well into the future, and everybody who is eligible to vote will be able to continue doing so.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
At the last general election, 14 million people who registered to vote did not do so, and the Electoral Commission estimates that 9 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote. Do the Government believe that higher turnouts of eligible voters in elections is a good sign for democracy? If so, why are Ministers putting their energy into making voting harder by introducing voter ID?
Chloe Smith
Yes, I do agree that turnout is incredibly important—and what is more, this policy will not affect it. The evidence of that is in the record from Northern Ireland, which Labour Members appear to be forgetting. The measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters. The Government have no intention of taking away people’s democratic right to vote. Mr Speaker,
“If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]
Those are not my words but those of a Labour Minister in 2003, introducing photo ID in Northern Ireland.
Rosie Cooper [V]
If the Minister, in spite of all the data, is determined that our elections would be made more secure by voter ID, does she not accept that the Government should provide ID free to all citizens of voting age, or is she quite content to price some people out of democracy?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady is a long-standing Member of this House and I am looking forward to debating with her enormously, but she simply has not read the papers. What she proposes is exactly what we are doing. I would like to make it absolutely clear here at the Dispatch Box that there will be a free local voter card. It will be free, it will be local, and it make sure that anybody who does not have photographic identification can still vote. I welcome that.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has previously advised me and the House that polling staff will be given appropriate training on checking photo IDs of individuals who wear headscarves or face coverings. Although the Government have apparently guaranteed the use of privacy screens at polling stations to facilitate private ID checks, many voters will not feel comfortable at the prospect of having to show their face or hair to a polling clerk of the opposite sex, and indeed may not vote. Will the Minister confirm whether her plans include provisions to ensure that there are both male and female staff all day at every one of the 35,500 polling stations across the country, to ensure that voters are not placed in an inappropriate position? How much would she expect that to cost?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady picks up on a very important point. We intend to do this properly. We are making sure that there is the right provision of training in polling stations, as she has already acknowledged, and with that, the right provision of communication to help voters be aware of this very reasonable and proportionate new requirement. All that is detailed in the documents that we put before the House this week. I look forward to debates on this subject, because we are being very honest and straightforward in our approach. We have put the documents there, we have done the research, we have done the pilots, we have done the modelling, we have done the evaluation and we have done the equality impact assessment. All that together will show how this policy is the right thing to do, and the elections integrity Bill protects our democracy, keeping it secure, modern, fair and transparent, as we would all expect it to be.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
As the Prime Minister has already confirmed, the public inquiry into covid-19 will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005, with formal powers to compel the production of relevant material and to take evidence in public under oath. The Government will, of course, co-operate with the inquiry fully.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm whether using private email accounts to discuss sensitive Government business is in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act or the Public Records Act, which make requirements on the use of Government information? Will he guarantee today that all Ministers’ private email accounts will be available to the public inquiry into the Government’s mishandling of the covid pandemic?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez) [V]
Verify continues to work well and it supports 18 services. More than 8 million Verify accounts have been created, with over 2.6 million added since the start of the pandemic as citizens access critical online services. Building on the lessons and experience of Verify, and as we announced in last year’s spending review, the Government Digital Service is collaborating with other Departments to develop a new login and identity assurance system that will make it much easier for more people to use online services safely. While the new system is being developed, users and connected services will continue to rely on gov.uk Verify, so that means that the Government have decided to extend the current service until April 2022.
Daniel Zeichner
It has actually been a shambles—a huge waste of public money, an absolute Conservative failure. In the light of the recent report from the so-called regulatory reform taskforce sponsored by No. 10, which recommends reducing the protections for citizens under the GDPR, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no use of personal data for any purpose other than that which it has been explicitly given?
Julia Lopez
How we use citizens’ data is going to be absolutely critical to building trust in the new system that we are building. That new system will reuse parts of Verify, but we must have an open conversation about what we will do to protect people’s data. There will not be any data lakes, for instance, and we will be building a new Government data exchange that will look at these areas very carefully, because, as I say, any new system has to be based on trust between Government and citizen, and that will be key to its success.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards required and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
Mary Glindon
Sadly, the Government have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to work within the system as it stands. Will the Government commit to placing the ministerial code on a statutory footing and give the adviser on Ministers’ interests powers to instigate his own investigations?
Chloe Smith
We think it is the right thing, in the context of our constitution, that the ministerial code and its enforcement and expectations sit with the Prime Minister, because he is, appropriately, the appointer of the Executive and is accountable to the sovereign for that. That is the constitutional set-up that we are talking about, so we think it is the right thing for the code to reflect that and therefore not be based on a statutory system. I add that the Prime Minister appointed Lord Geidt recently as the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and spoke with him about the second point that the hon. Lady raised—whether there might be initiation for that adviser. The Prime Minister has set out his response to the recommendation that there might be the ability to advise the PM on the initiation of investigations.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
My Department, along with the Leader of the House, has been reviewing the English votes for English laws procedure. The procedure has been suspended since April 2020 and, having reflected on the procedure, the Government believe that it has not served our Parliament well and that removing it would simplify the legislative process. It is a fundamental principle that all constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be equally represented in Parliament. Any changes, of course, would be for the House to decide and we will bring forward a motion in due course.
Steve McCabe [V]
How would the right hon. Gentleman reassure a member of the public who thinks that a Minister using a personal mobile phone to conduct Government business is trying to evade scrutiny because they have something to hide?
Michael Gove
I would reassure them by saying that all Government business is transacted through civil service colleagues, and that in order to ensure that a single penny of taxpayers’ money is spent, or that a single decision is taken, that might infringe, or enhance anyone’s liberty, it has to go through the process of review, legislation and action, which civil servants and Ministers do together in a way that is always clear, transparent and publicly accountable.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
In the inquiry by the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs into the collapse of Greensill Capital, many of our witnesses so far have prayed in aid the advice given to them by Sue Gray, who at the time was director general for propriety and ethics at the Cabinet Office. She was invited to attend our Committee on Tuesday; her office initially accepted that invitation, but I am told that she has now declined it on the advice of those more senior at the Cabinet Office. It is vital that the Committee be able to hear from Ms Gray, given that she was mentioned so many times by others. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to ensure that she will attend on Tuesday as planned?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend chairs the Committee brilliantly, but there are rules—the Osmotherly rules. They stress that serving civil servants act only in accordance with the wishes of Ministers and therefore it is rarely appropriate for them to appear to be questioned in the way that my hon. Friend would like. So I am ready, willing and able to appear in front of the Committee, but it is my view that it would be inappropriate for a serving civil servant to appear in the way that my hon. Friend requests.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Football is indeed coming home, but I also think that the chickens are coming home to roost for this Government. The Government’s spokesperson said last week that
“there was no high priority lane for testing suppliers…and there was no separate ‘fast track process’”.
Can the Minister for the Cabinet Office tell me what exactly the role was of the consultant to the testing procurement programme who described his role as
“to lead VIP stakeholder engagement with…Lord…Bethell”,
who is still somehow a Minister. If there is no fast track, why did the right hon. Gentleman’s own procurement director order officials to mark bids that came from Ministers’ email addresses as “fast track”?
Michael Gove
There were lots of interesting questions there. The first thing that I should say is that Lord Bethell is doing a fantastic job in the Department of Health and Social Care. I think that it is quite wrong for the right hon. Lady to cast aspersions on his dedicated public service and the work that he has done as Minister for Innovation.
The second thing that I should say is that every single procurement decision went through an eight-stage process in order to ensure that every single piece of personal protective equipment, or everything—[Interruption.] Useful commentary there from the Alan Hansen of politics, but the truth is that actually we have always been in compliance with the rules, unlike the Scottish Government. Audit Scotland has pointed out to the Scottish Government that they need to do better, and indeed they must.
Angela Rayner
I listened to the Minister’s answer, and I can tell him that Lord Bethell is no Sterling. The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson stated last week that no Ministers had used private emails to conduct Government business. Surely the Minister now accepts that that is untrue. Will he tell us when the Prime Minister will correct the record?
I listened to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have already submitted freedom of information requests to seek the publication of emails, but will the Minister agree now to publish every such email about Government contracts? Can he make a guarantee to the House today for bereaved families—including my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who made a very passionate speech at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—that every single one of those emails is secured for the public inquiry?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady quite rightly refers to the very powerful question from the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and I think all of us deeply sympathise with the family loss that he has had to endure, as so many others have had to. It is precisely because we take these things seriously that we took steps to ensure that we could source personal protective equipment as quickly as possible. Of course, we did so in a way that was entirely consistent with good procurement practice. We used the measures that were used by the Labour Government in Wales and by the SNP Government in Scotland to ensure that we could get things to the frontline as effectively as possible and in accordance with fair procedure.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we reflect on how public-spirited individuals such as Alan Halsall and Darren Grimes were treated, I think it was quite right for the new head of the Electoral Commission to issue an apology. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is a means by which parties across this House can ensure that the Electoral Commission does its important job, and the Elections Bill will ensure that the Speaker’s Committee and others play an important role in making sure that the Electoral Commission does its job properly.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises an important question. Action is being taken by the Transport Secretary, and the issue was discussed earlier this week at Cabinet. I am also working with Lord Frost to ensure that we can have free-flowing freight and that we get the goods that we need to consumers in a timely fashion.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In a former life he was a distinguished leader of West Sussex County Council and, as such, he knows how important it is to the delivery of public services to ensure that one has appropriate metrics, one shares data and that one uses digital innovation to improve service delivery. I look forward to working with him to improve Government delivery in just that way.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Michael Gove
It is not my job to monitor the personal emails of all my colleagues. If I did, I suspect—[Interruption.] Well, it might be quite interesting, actually; quite entertaining. The key thing is you cannot conduct Government business from private email to private email. The only way you can conduct Government business is through civil servants.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Michael Gove
And indeed Peterlee. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, it is a pity that the Labour administration in County Durham have squandered County Durham taxpayers’ money in the way that they have, but the point that my hon. Friend makes about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency’s potential location in the north-east and in Durham is a very good one, and I will discuss it with the Business Secretary.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
We are only following what the Labour party does. It was the Labour party that introduced the requirement for voter ID in Northern Ireland, as the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) pointed out earlier. It is also the case that one can vote in internal Labour elections only by using voter ID. I do not know whether there is an internal Labour election coming up soon. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), will be better informed on that question than me—[Interruption.] Sorry! Anyway, to vote in a Labour election, you need voter ID.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We do not currently have plans to do that, but she makes a fair point. As everyone knows, for the remaining hereditary peerages in the House of Lords, when an hereditary peer in any one of the party or Cross-Bench groups passes away, there is a by-election among those who are eligible, but at the moment in nearly every case the franchise and candidacy is restricted to men. That is something we should definitely look at.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is much that we need to do to ensure the more effective inclusion in civic life of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals. First, we must start with making sure that they receive a higher quality of education than is currently the case. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are among those with the worst educational outcomes and we need to address that in order to make sure that they play their full part in public life. But there is absolutely no evidence that the requirement for voter ID will do anything to discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When I was in the north-east and the Western Isles recently, I heard individuals and businesses crying out for economic support. When I explained that the UK Government had given significant sums to the Scottish Government in the covid crisis to deal with the emergency, the question was, “How has it been spent?” Because there has been no accountability and no transparency on the part of the Scottish Government. We have no idea how that money has been spent and the Scottish Parliament does not yet have the powers necessary to get that information. However, Her Majesty’s Treasury can ask tough questions and require information to be shared, and unless the Scottish Government are more transparent, I will have to consider how I can work with Ministers and with my hon. Friend to make sure that Scottish taxpayers know where their money has gone.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba) [V]
Michael Gove
No. This Government are committed to devolution. Like the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, we believe in a United Kingdom that gets the best of both worlds: a strong Westminster Government working with strong devolved institutions. Of course, I recognise that, in the spirit of providing the Scottish people with a choice, the hon. Gentleman decided to leave the Scottish National party in order to set up, with Mr Salmond, the Alba party. One reason he did so is that he believed that the Scottish Government were doing a poor job, that they were not making the case effectively for independence and, indeed, that the way in which they were discharging their responsibilities actually corroded the case for independence. On the final point, the hon. Gentleman and I are as one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outline what collective approach has been taken by BEIS and the Cabinet Office to address some of the issues affecting small businesses with regard to the import of hundreds of products to Northern Ireland? I know that he has a particular interest in this issue. Businesses are being prevented from trading normally, as things were pre-31 December 2020; they are under stress and it has reduced their income. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree to grant funding for a loss of income, as business have been impacted through no fault of their own?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As a result of the particular interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol on which some in the European Commission have insisted, businesses in Strangford and elsewhere have faced additional costs. We have already devoted money through the trader support service and other means to support businesses, but I will talk to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Treasury and Lord Frost to see what we can do to ensure that businesses in Strangford and elsewhere in Northern Ireland are not further disadvantaged.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Business of the House
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Obviously, many Members will want to congratulate the great team last night—England. We look forward to Sunday, and we wish them well. Let us now start business questions. I call Thangam Debbonaire.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 12 July will include:
Monday 12 July—Second Reading of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Tuesday 13 July—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a motion relating to English votes for English laws, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Wednesday 14 July—Second Reading of the Health and Care Bill.
Thursday 15 July—Debate on a motion relating to the Northern Ireland protocol, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the Peking Winter Olympics and Chinese Government sanctions. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 July will include:
Monday 19 July—Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 20 July—Conclusion of the Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 21 July—Second Reading of the Building Safety Bill.
Thursday 22 July—Debate on a motion relating to the fifth report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee entitled “A public inquiry into the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic”, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee.
At the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 July, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Monday 6 September.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business and look forward to our debate on ending all EVEL next week.
Gareth Southgate inspires his players to be the best they can be and to do it for their country. He backs them in their campaigning for social and racial justice, even under criticism. He instils relentless focus on hard work. He inspires them to be gracious in victory, as well as to learn from experience. He has rightly identified these values as patriotism. I would love us all to learn from the Gareth Southgate model of patriotic leadership. We all congratulate England on their amazing success last night. We cheer them on for Sunday and, yes, it will probably be just my parents listening to me on “Westminster Hour” on Sunday evening. Caring about the world’s poorest is a British value. People’s support for an England team proud of its belief in social justice shows that that is true, so will the Government honour them and grant a proper debate and a vote on international aid-?
Thangam Debbonaire
Thank you.
Caring about the NHS is a British value, and people showed that as they marked its birthday this week. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke movingly for so many who have had the pain of not being with a loved at the end of life because of covid rules. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to reward the dedicated NHS and care staff, who stepped up for their country to care for people’s loved ones, with a pay rise that we know they deserve?
Building a better world for our children is also a British value. British people care deeply about protecting animals, nature and the planet. Yet despite recent warnings, such as the devastating heatwaves in the Pacific north-west, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to deal with climate change, announced seven months ago, appears to be just talk and is nowhere on the Order Paper or in the forthcoming business. He talked of home insulation, so when we will have a replacement for the Government’s failed green homes grant? He talked of his plan creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. How many jobs has it created so far? The Climate Change Committee says:
“This defining year for the UK’s climate credentials has been marred by uncertainty and delay”.
It warns:
“With every month of inaction, it is harder for the UK to get on track.”
The Leader of the House said a few years ago that he would rather his constituents had cheap energy than windmills. Is it possible that his failure to notice the value of wind energy is connected in any way to any investments that his company may or may not have in fossil fuels? Does he understand that an ambitious heat and building strategy, which was due last year, would make his constituents’ homes warmer and cheaper? The committee said:
“Only five of 34 sectors assessed have shown notable progress in the past two years, and no sector is yet scoring highly”,
and that we should be
“learning from the COVID-19 response.”
That Government said to the Environmental Audit Committee that they want to do that, but how can they do it if they refuse even to examine the covid-19 response? When will the British public get our public inquiry?
Shining leadership is another proud British value exemplified by Gareth Southgate. The UK will be in a unique position this year when world leaders come to Glasgow to discuss climate change. We have the chance to shine. If the UK showcases strong policies to cut emissions and improve lives, it could set the standard globally, but if the Government are unable to follow through on their own commitments, they are letting us down and other countries may falter.
Fairness is also a defining British value. There is a motion from Labour on the Order Paper to sort out the unfair loophole that allows the MP found to have sexually harassed staff to avoid recall from his constituents. Everyone knows this needs sorting. I know the news is reporting that he has been warned to stay away, but there is nothing to stop him returning and staff have concerns. Things can be done retrospectively and quickly when the Government want, as they showed this week with the Building Safety Bill and the regulations for late pub licensing, so why should the people of Delyn be denied their right to the value of democracy because of a technicality that we know we will fix?
As I said last week, the Prime Minister consistently does not do his homework. Yesterday, he could not answer vital questions from the Leader of the Opposition and later at the Liaison Committee about critical covid data. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to be frank with the British public and show his working for such life-changing decisions?
In contrast to the Prime Minister, Gareth Southgate and the England team value hard work, discipline and preparation, and the British people seem to appreciate those qualities. For the sake of our country and the wonderful people who live and work here, I hope the Prime Minister spends some time over the next few days studying at the Gareth Southgate school of leadership. The British people will be asking themselves who they want to lead them. Do they want someone who works hard and has a relentless focus on embodying British values, or do they want the current Prime Minister? I know what I think, and I am pretty sure the British people will be telling us that soon.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Everyone, I think, is rejoicing at the football success. I think the line to take is from Mr Barnes:
“You’ve got to hold and give
But do it at the right time
You can be slow or fast
But you must get to the line”.
May I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that
“We ain’t no hooligans
This ain’t a football song
Three lions on my chest
I know we can’t go wrong”?
As another John—John Dryden—put it:
“For they conquer who believe they can.”
I think, for the record, that Dryden was translating Virgil in those comments, but the point is exactly the same: it is indeed the excellent leadership of Mr Southgate that led to such a good triumph yesterday against Denmark. Let us hope for the same on Sunday. I say to right hon. and hon. Members that they can always listen to the “Westminster Hour” on playback, and they can enjoy listening to the hon. Lady’s dulcet tones on that unmissable and particularly well-hosted programme.
Let me come to the hon. Lady’s points. I think everyone was impressed and moved by what the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said yesterday. It was a very powerful intervention, and it is what the nation has endured for the past 15 months. It is a reminder of why it has been endured: it was to protect lives. Fortunately, the vaccine is now protecting lives, which allows us to reopen, but that does not begin to lift the sorrow from the families who have been affected, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise that in the House yesterday.
The NHS is recognised across the country, and the award of the George Cross was a symbolic recognition of that. Of course, pay is a difficult issue because we have spent as a nation £407 billion on protecting the economy, so it is about trying to ensure that the recognition is there within the resources that we have as a country and the amount that taxpayers have.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) mentioned the Government’s efforts on the environment. The Environment Bill is still in the House of Lords. The Bill was passed in the Commons and carried over into this Session in the Lords, where every line and detail are now being debated—their lordships were debating it last night, I think, while others were watching the football; carrying on diligently, doing their bit for the nation. The Bill, which will come back to us, is a really important piece of legislation that will have a fundamental effect in helping us to meet our commitment to net zero.
The Government can be very proud of what we have done so far. The hon. Lady quoted me as saying a few years ago that I wanted cheap energy rather than windmills, but now we are getting both, which is much better. That is a huge success for the British people. Since 1990, we have driven down emissions by 44%—the fastest reduction of any G7 country—and grown our economy by 78%. What we want is economic growth and cleaner growth. What we do not want is to trash the economy and live in a cave. We want prosperity for the British people, and that is what we are getting. The hon. Lady says she wants environmentally friendly jobs, and so do I, and we are getting them, from Nissan and Vauxhall, because we are doing it successfully and in an economically intelligent way.
The Prime Minister has set out a 10-point plan on how we achieve net zero, how we ensure that the economy grows and how we become more environmentally friendly. Point 2 of the plan is on the opportunities of hydrogen, to allow clean energy with water the only emission. That is fantastic, because then we can all get back into our motorcars, as what comes out the end will be clean. It will be good for the motorist and good for the environment, and I think that is very exciting.
As regards the inquiry into covid, that has been promised by the end of the Session, as the Prime Minister has made clear. We are actually having a debate on a report produced by one of our most distinguished Select Committees, announced in Backbench Business time, before the summer recess.
As regards fairness and the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the motion that she has tabled. The first two thirds of it, of course, are the motion that I asked to be shared with her for discussion at the House of Commons Commission, and of course for discussion with the employees of the House and Sir Stephen Irwin. It is very important that this is done on a consensual basis, and I think that the motion is a helpful contribution to the debate.
Of course, it is open to the Opposition to bring forward their motion on an Opposition day. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that they have not had one, but they have actually had three of four Opposition days since this issue arose. They decide to bring forward the motion at the point at which they are waiting for one, but they will get more, as there is a commitment to Opposition days in the Standing Orders. I think it is a helpful contribution to the debate. It is very important to maintain the independence of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, but the motion put forward originated with the Clerks of this House and is a useful contribution to the debate.
As regards the PM and statistics, some of us will recall a former Prime Minister who used to reel off statistics from this great Dispatch Box—it was not then covered with Perspex—so let me model myself on that great lady and remind the hon. Lady of some of the statistics on what has happened over the past year: £407 billion of taxpayers’ money supporting the economy, families and businesses; 14.5 million jobs and people helped through the furlough and self-employment schemes, at a cost of £91.1 billion to the taxpayer; protecting the most vulnerable with £8 billion for the welfare system; protecting thousands of businesses with over £100 billion of support; extending the furlough and self-employment schemes until the end of September; restart grants of up to £18,000 for retain, hospitality, leisure and personal care businesses. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady just sits there chuntering, because she does not want to hear the facts, and the facts are that the figures stack up and the Government have done an amazing amount to keep the economy going.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Is it not wonderful that the entire country is today talking about football, and not about covid or Brexit? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a great and distinguished democrat, and a stalwart supporter of the rights of this House and of Parliament, so can he explain why, having announced the business today, he is sending the House off for the summer recess without a vote on the 0.7% commitment? For how much longer will he continue to disrespect this House and run away from a vote on the matter, and to disobey your specific injunction, Mr Speaker, at 3.30 pm on Monday 14 June?
Mr Speaker
I would just say that nobody has said we are not having a vote yet.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, it is even better than that. We had an opportunity for a vote, which my right hon. Friend passed up. He is a very experienced parliamentarian. He has been here much longer than I have. He is well aware that estimates are in fact the foundation of the power of the House of Commons to approve the expenditure of the Government. Estimates are votable. The failure to pass an estimate would have been a major problem for the Government, who would have had to bring back a new estimate. The fact that my right hon. Friend has not studied Erskine May carefully enough, and has therefore missed his opportunity, is not my problem but his.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It would be churlish not to recognise the great sporting success of the last 24 hours. I am sure the whole House would like to congratulate Surrey for finishing seven not out to deny Hampshire victory—I am sure that is much more up the Leader of the House’s street.
Football may or may not be coming home in the next few days, but I will certainly be going home when business questions concludes. There is one place where there has been a massive defeat, and that is on the Government’s English votes for English laws procedure. We will finally bury that appalling, time-wasting mess next week. I do not know whether it was dividing the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes of Member or the ridiculous attempts to have some sort of quasi-English Parliament squat here in the national Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that convinced the Government to back down, but it is a massive victory for the Scottish National party; our campaign of ridicule and disparagement of the whole nonsense has won. We do not often get victories in this place, but we will be celebrating next Tuesday.
I support the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The House simply must have the opportunity to vote on this Government’s overseas aid cuts before the recess. All that rubbish about estimates is not good enough. It has to be a dedicated vote. It is not often that Members of Opposition parties say that the Government must uphold their manifesto commitments, but that is what they must do, and we must have that vote before the recess.
We rise in a couple of weeks, and all the provisions for virtual participation and proxy voting will fall. Infections and hospitalisations are rising exponentially with the Johnson variant, and we do not know where we will be in September. What provision will the Leader of the House put in place for if this House needs to review its arrangements and requires some of the facilities that we have come to rely on over the past year?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman when he is not feeling churlish. I hate to think what he would sound like when he is feeling churlish.
As regards plans for this House, such plans can always be made swiftly if necessary. On EVEL, I am delighted to suggest it is a victory for the SNP, but is also a victory for people of my way of thinking about our constitution. This is important—within this House, we are the Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why on occasions, though not as a general practice of course, laws will be passed without legislative consent motions, as with powers that came back from the European Union—in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example—where the Scottish Parliament was not willing to agree legislative consent motions. That is part of an overall package of the restoration of powers to the United Kingdom Parliament from the European Union, and we are the nation’s Parliament. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
As regards the 0.7%, I point out that we remain one of the world’s largest donors at 0.5%. That is an impost on British taxpayers, and it is Her Majesty’s Government being charitable on behalf of British taxpayers. I will go back to my constitutional lecture, because I think people are simply failing to understand the importance of estimates, which are fundamental to the powers of this House. The ability to approve expenditure is what historically gave this House its power over the Executive, and the ability to vote down an estimate is one that is rarely used because of its very profound consequence. What I ask the House and those who support the hon. Gentleman is, if they feel as strongly about the issue as they say, why did they not use the tool available to them?
Let me go into this in a little more detail. Had the estimate been voted down, the Foreign Office and overseas aid would have run out of money after the initial estimate, which was done earlier in the year, had expired. A proportionate amount of money is agreed before the beginning of the financial year and would then run out if the final estimate were not to be approved. In that event, the Government have to come forward with a new estimate and it would have to be an estimate that they thought they could get through the House. As a matter of simple constitutional fact, had the House chosen to vote on the estimates, it would have left the Government in a position where they would have had bring forward a new motion for overseas aid expenditure in the Foreign Office. Otherwise, all our embassies would have run out of money. They would not have been able to pay their water bills. It is a failure of those who stand up and chunter about this not to use the tools to hand. It is really not my fault if they have not studied “Erskine May” carefully enough.
Mr Speaker
I think we might just get a passage from “Erskine May” now—I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My right hon. Friend recommended reading “Erskine May”. I happen to have the 25th edition of “Erskine May” with me. Of course, what it makes clear is quite how difficult it is to amend an estimate, so much so that the last time that one was successfully amended was one century ago; he may remember—it was 1921. It makes it very clear that the Crown’s prerogative on the monopoly of financial initiative means that the only thing we can do in this House, unless the Crown acts differently, is to cut the bill, not increase it.
My right hon. Friend’s argument to the House is that we should do away with all the aid in order to get more aid. I am not quite sure that the public—or, indeed, the ambassadors, with their redundancy notices—would have quite understood that. It is rather sad that the Government are playing such games with this very, very important issue.
My right hon. Friend is a kindly man and he will know that, unlike most of the debates he is asked for, every day that goes by without this debate means that more people go without aid, particularly in places such as Yemen, where there is a famine right now. In the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, the ex-Prime Minister of Portugal, António Guterres, under famine conditions
“cutting aid is a death sentence.”
Can we please have this debate as soon as possible, so that we can change the Government’s policy for the better?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The problem with pre-prepared questions is that they miss out what has been said before, so I will reiterate it: had the estimate been voted down, not amended—I did not mention amending—the Government would have had to come forward with a new estimate by early August, otherwise the money would run out. It is a very straightforward mechanism that my right hon. Friend failed to use. That is rather surprising, when he is such an experienced parliamentarian. He has been in the House much longer than I have, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
Our overseas aid budget must be what we as a nation can afford. We had our largest peacetime deficit in the last financial year because of the covid crisis. We cannot afford to be as generous as we once were, but we must ensure that the money we spend is spent as wisely as possible and on the alleviation of disasters, which is a fundamentally important part of our overseas aid budget.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
As always, I am grateful to be called, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business up to the recess and for protecting the time for the Backbench Business Committee debate this afternoon. I hope that he can ensure that we have some time for Backbench Business debates in the first week back following the summer recess; we would be very grateful if he could facilitate that.
Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport prior to the summer recess about what his Department will be doing to address the huge shortage in heavy goods vehicle drivers in the road haulage industry? I have been contacted by representatives of the road haulage industry in my constituency of Gateshead who have really pressing concerns about the current situation and the implications for the industry and, more importantly, for the reopening of the economy over the next few months.
Mr Speaker, you might know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters. Being a Newcastle United fan, I have come to expect nothing, so anything we get is a bonus, but congratulations to England; getting to the final is a great achievement. They are in the final—go on and win it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I seem to remember that the late Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Hume, was a supporter of Newcastle as well, so I imagine there is some heavenly support for the hon. Gentleman’s team currently.
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s appeal for Backbench Business time. We always do our best, on behalf of the Government, to facilitate that. As regards the HGV driver shortage, the Government are aware of it and steps have been taken to implement several long-term solutions across Government, including the development of a large goods vehicle driver apprenticeship programme by the Department for Transport and the Department for Education aimed at addressing long-term driver skills shortages and improved labour supply. There is consideration of extending delivery hours, but the food industry is very well versed in dealing with delivery requirements and necessities. There is a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport coming up, but I think, Mr Speaker, you may get a bit worried if goes from overseas travel on to—
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
Returning to the issue of overseas aid and the target, is it not the case that the Government are doing one of two things? Either they are seeking to change that statutory target without parliamentary approval, in which case, although I would be the last person to ask the Government to disclose their own legal advice, they will have to explain why legal opinions that say that is unlawful are wrong, as I for one, do not believe they are; or alternatively, they are making use of provisions in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which set that target in statute, that allow it to be missed in exceptional circumstances.
Those are two different things and I am not clear, from the pronouncements of various Ministers, which of the two is Government policy. Surely my right hon. Friend accepts that the House is entitled to absolute clarity on which of the two it is. If the Government are really proposing to change primary legislation, is it not incumbent on them to seek parliamentary support for that, rather than expect Parliament to use a device such as estimates in order to discuss it? If, on the other hand, the Government are missing the target but not changing it, then we need a statement to explore how compliance with the target will be restored.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the law that relates to the 0.7% target, which requires that at the end of the financial year where the target is missed a statement should be laid before Parliament. The law will be followed.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Leader of the House referred to distinguished Select Committees, but when the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee wrote to him about its untimely and premature demise, our plea fell on deaf ears. The same applies to international aid: not only no vote but no Committee. At a time when we have a diminishing percentage of a shrinking pot, surely scrutiny now is needed more than ever. Gaza is in ruins and we have a global pandemic. As a Back Bencher, the right hon. Gentleman was an assiduous Committee member. Can he prove that accountability still matters and that with his new lofty position the power has not just gone to his head?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The overseas aid Committee has been retained, so I am slightly puzzled that the hon. Lady thinks it has been abolished. It was kept, under its very distinguished Chairman. As regards the Brexit Select Committee, Brexit happened and therefore its purpose had come to an end. I am glad to say, however, that there is an excellent Committee that does its role—much better, actually, than the Brexit Committee ever did it—which is the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
While I am absolutely delighted that football and the summer Adjournment debate are coming home, will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on what appears to be the inappropriate application of “do not resuscitate” orders by certain hospitals without the express consent of the patient and their loved ones. I do understand that during the height of the pandemic those orders were made on an individual needs basis, but on such a sensitive subject everyone involved should be consulted.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite wrong for “do not attempt CPR” decisions to be applied in a blanket fashion to any group of people. Those decisions should be made only when the person involved and their carers and families have been consulted. We do not want to see efforts to introduce euthanasia by the backdoor by not reviving people who ought to be revived. I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Our high streets have been struggling for many years now, and covid has accelerated the challenges they face. There was another example of that last week when, sadly, Neston post office closed its doors for the last time. I understand that there is interest from some potential new operators, but experience has shown us that it can take many, many months for those interests to come to fruition. For a town of Neston’s size to have no post office for any period of time is simply unacceptable, so can we have a debate please on what we can do to have more statutory obligations on the Post Office to ensure that vital public services are not left from towns for any length of time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government certainly recognise the difficulties that town centres are facing, hence the towns fund, which is £2 billion of funding offering town deals to 86 places across England, which includes accelerated funding provided to places last year. The towns fund will mainly spend taxpayers’ money of £25 million in each town, although in exceptional circumstances more is available. The ability to go to the post office or to banks and other essential services is of course of great importance. The Post Office has to ensure that it provides as much service as possible within the budget that it has got.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
In the east midlands, we have a huge amount of potential but have been consistently at the bottom of the tables for public and private sector investment. I sense your concern about that, Mr Speaker, and I know you wish to see us playing a key part in the Government’s levelling up agenda, so you will be pleased to hear that we have all sorts of plans in place from our freeport development corporation, to plans around HS2, fusion energy and bids to the towns fund and the levelling up fund. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate these key priorities in the House ahead of the levelling up White Paper and spending review in the autumn?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his determined representation of his county and his constituency. He has raised this issue with a much higher level; he recently met the Prime Minister to discuss the east midlands freeport and HS2 and how it might benefit his area, so his campaigning is proving very effective and his voice is being heard throughout the land, and particularly in Downing Street. The Prime Minister will publish the landmark levelling up White Paper later this year, which will include our plans for strengthening local accountable leadership. In total, we have committed nearly £3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money for councils and businesses in the east midlands, so may I suggest to my hon. Friend that he might want to raise this matter further, either in a Westminster Hall debate or at the end-of-term Adjournment debate?
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
The Leader of the House may recall that I am my wife’s carer. A year ago, at the height of the pandemic, I found myself in an extremely difficult situation in terms of carrying out my parliamentary duties, voting, making speeches and contributions and so on. I want to go on the record in thanking the Leader of the House and everyone else who managed to sort this out. It has been of great benefit, and me and my family are truly grateful.
May I ask the Leader of the House to cast his eye to September and what may or may not happen in terms of how the House conducts its business? Could I ask him to give earnest consideration to consulting people like me in my situation, disabled people and people who might have a health condition as to how we might enable all of us to participate as much as possible, if the capricious covid virus does something we do not expect in the months ahead?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am touched by the hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I am not sure I deserve them as fully as he has given them, but I am none the less very grateful. I am always open to listening to hon. and right hon. Members who have suggestions about how the House is operating and what we may or may not need to do in future in relation to covid, as I know are the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and indeed you, Mr Speaker. We are obviously hoping that everything will be back to normal and that is the basis on which plans are being made, but man proposes and God disposes.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the proposed May ’22 train timetable changes, which cut the number of Darlington to London trains by a third? Delaying this timetable change would allow a proper assessment of the impact not only of coronavirus on the trains, but of the massive Government investment going into Teesside with our new freeport and Treasury North. Crucially, a delay would provide more time to develop the business case to introduce a direct Redcar to London service, which I am sure the Leader of the House agrees would be a great addition to the network.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sure that having a Redcar service coming straight to London—a fast service—would benefit the nation and lift spirits. As I believe the Prime Minister said, Redcar has become “Bluecar”. That is probably Thomas the Tank Engine, who I seem to remember is the blue train.
I completely understand the difficulties that train timetable alterations create. Obviously, there has been great pressure on the train timetables during the course of the pandemic, and the losses that the railways are making have required some changes, but I will take up my hon. Friend’s point with the Secretary of State for Transport.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I think everyone can see the rank hypocrisy in the UK Government, who seek to deny a future referendum on Scottish independence, simultaneously and unlawfully misdirecting money towards carrying out opinion polling on Scottish attitudes to the Union that was intended to go to the public health efforts against covid. Why, if now is not the time, was that polling activity undertaken? Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to prevail upon his colleagues to place the outcomes and findings of that research in the Library, so that the public might better understand exactly what it was that they got for their money?
Mr Rees-Mogg
When important communications have to be sent to the country at large around something such as covid, it is important to understand how people feel and how they will respond to the messages. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of Governments listening. I recall that the Shetland Islands last September asked whether it could look at ways of having more independence, possibly including becoming a Crown dependency. As Lord President of the Council, I am particularly interested in that question of its becoming a Crown dependency, because that activity would then come through the Privy Council. Of course, the Shetland Islands would be one of the richest sets of islands almost anywhere in the world if it were able to have the oil revenues that would accrue to it. I wonder what the Scottish Government are doing in response to the Shetland Islands. They are so keen always to have votes and so on; perhaps they will have a vote on independence for Shetland.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
First, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of whether football is finally coming home? Secondly, does he agree that levelling up and the cities for growth agenda must not be limited to cities alone, and will he visit Melton Mowbray to see where I am campaigning for a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs office to open in the rural capital of food? If DEFRA cannot open an office in a rural town and prove that we care for our rural areas, then what Department will?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think, as England could win against New Zealand in the 50-over world championship, there is hope for all our sporting heroes, and therefore let us be cautiously optimistic about what will happen on Sunday. But it is possibly unwise of a non-expert in this area to make a forecast—not that we think much of experts as a general rule, but we will leave that to one side.
As regards the levelling up agenda, of course it must not be limited to cities alone. I represent a rural constituency, and I feel it is really important that the whole of our country is levelled up. That is the point of levelling up. As regards DEFRA moving to my hon. Friend’s constituency and improving, therefore, the consumption of pork pies, which I believe are a great delicacy from Melton Mowbray—I am grateful for the opportunity to visit—I think she is right to campaign for that. I encourage her to do so, but I cannot promise what the answer will be from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Another business questions and still no movement on the Government’s plans to eradicate the practice of fire and rehire. Continuing the football theme, it is like Ministers taking the ball into the corner to run down the clock until we get to recess, without actually having to do anything. It is months now since the Government received the ACAS report, so can we have a statement before recess outlining the Government’s position and what they plan to do to stop this scourge and this inhuman practice?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We did have a statement in response to the ACAS report on fire and rehire, the complexities of that report and the way in which it would best be implemented, and the Government’s clear recognition that fire and rehire as a tactic is a bad practice. But there may be circumstances where the best protection of jobs involves an element of it, and therefore the straightforward banning of it altogether would not necessarily improve employment opportunities.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
In recent weeks, I have met several of my local parish and town councils, and they have all led on a rise in antisocial behaviours that is affecting their communities and residents. Some residents are living in fear, and more often than not it is a small group of people, sometimes even one family, causing chaos for those around them. I know that I have the full support of the new police and crime commissioner in Derbyshire, but may we have a debate in Government time on the powers that our police, district councils, county councils and, indeed, parish councils have in respect of residents who cause so much trouble for other residents, and their powers to make sure that communities do not suffer the blight of antisocial behaviour?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend, because every one of us has, as a constituency MP, come across instances of antisocial behaviour caused by a very small number of people. My experience is that the powers are there and that our role as Members of Parliament is to co-ordinate the local agencies and get them to use the powers that they have. When those powers are used, very often these problems are solved. I remind my hon. Friend that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the police, local authorities and other local agencies with a range of tools and powers. Although they can respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour, sometimes it does not register with the relevant authorities early enough, which is why we as MPs play a useful role in bringing the focus of attention to it and encouraging them to use the powers that they have. My hon. Friend may want to raise this issue at Home Office questions on Monday.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
The dream of transforming the Northumberland economy and leading the way in the green industrial revolution with 8,000 new local, well-paid, skilled, secure jobs in my constituency of Wansbeck came a step closer this week with the approval of the plans for the Britishvolt gigafactory in Cambois. The plans are to manufacture 300,000 lithium-ion electric car batteries annually. Is it not ironic that my constituency, which was hugely dependent on coal mining, now has this unmissable opportunity to greatly assist the UK in its zero-carbon objectives? As with Ellesmere Port and Nissan, Government assistance will be essential, so can we have a debate in Government time to discuss how and what assistance can be given to ensure that local people are at the front of the queue and will be adequately trained and skilled up and in employment for day one of the planned construction?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is a great parliamentarian. I fear it must have pained him to praise a Conservative Government so much, so I am all the more grateful for the fact that he has done it and for the sincerity with which he did. I am tempted to exceed my remit and simply grant the debate he asked for, because he asked for it so charmingly, but I think I will leave it at a suggestion that it should be a matter for an Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and co-operation, which shows that we can work on a cross-party basis to get zero carbon, to improve technology and to improve people’s standard of living. If the two of us can be cross-party, almost anybody can.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend watched the England game yesterday evening and will join me in congratulating the team on their fantastic victory and in wishing them success and luck for the final on Sunday. The team have united the nation and I am sure that our success will spur on a new generation of budding Harry Kanes.
The fan-led review of football governance will consider all parts of our national game. It is important that it also examines how we can continue to nurture young talent. Will my right hon. Friend look to hold a debate in Government time on the review, when it reports its findings?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right about the uniting force of success. Football is the most popular game in this country—amazingly, it is more popular than cricket, which always surprises me, but nonetheless it is—and I did indeed watch the game last night, with any number of my children, some of whom were staying up rather later than is perhaps advisable for children of their young years, but never mind.
The fan-led review, an independent review led by our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), was announced by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 19 April 2021 and will explore ways of improving the governance, ownership and financial sustainability of clubs in English football, building on the strengths of the football pyramid. May I suggest that, rather than immediately having a debate, my hon. Friend seeks to speak to our hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, because that will be a good way to start the conversation and be involved in the process?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We all want to move safely out of lockdown, but we may now see the emergence of a new vaccine-resistant variant in people who have had one jab who are infected and, indeed, the level of infection from the delta variant may rise to 100,000 cases a day. Will the Government ensure that in the event that Parliament is recalled in the summer, hybrid online facilities for MP participation will continue so that all voters can be safely represented?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Labour spokesmen and Members seem to come on and say that they want the lockdown to end and then they try to stop it ending. There seems to be a great desire not to end the lockdown. I think we want to get on on 19 July and get back to as normal as possible, including in this House. This is really important, but the House has shown in the past that it can act swiftly if necessary.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
There is an unprecedented national shortage of building materials, including timber and cement. Across the country, builders are struggling to get the materials they need and the prices are spiralling out of control. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on how we ensure that Britain’s builders get the bricks and mortar they need to build back better?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am aware that there are inflationary pressures in some areas of the economy and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Government are aware of the current shortage of building materials owing to global demand outstripping supply, and material prices are increasing significantly. This is having a particular impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government are working with the Construction Leadership Council’s product availability group to identify and resolve these challenges, but my hon. Friend could raise this at the end-of-term Adjournment debate if he seeks further discussion of it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not think the Leader of the House has really addressed this adequately. If a Member of the House—if the Leader of the House—tests positive for covid-19 on 5 September and is required by the Government to self-isolate for 10 days, how are their voices, the voices of their constituents and the votes of their constituents to be represented in this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government speak with one voice, so if I were not able to be here, the Deputy Chief Whip—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—would appear for me, as he did once before, and, I am sorry to say, he did it extraordinarily well, which rather made me nervous, thinking that he might take this role on a more permanent basis. There are always opportunities for Government Ministers to be replaced by other Ministers, speaking with one voice for the Government.
As for the more general concern, the question is: are we getting to a stage where we live with covid and it is like other diseases, so Members of the House will be affected in the same way as if they had another illness? That is something that we have coped with over hundreds of years. There is a pairing system that works very well. There are means of getting questions raised on one’s behalf, but this has been an exceptional period with exceptional practices because of the widespread, all-encompassing nature of the pandemic. Assuming that that is not going to continue to be the case permanently, we ought to return to normal as soon as possible.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
While we all welcome the progress towards getting back to normal, is the Leader of the House aware that the covid emergency did result in some innovations being put in place that were widely welcomed and popular? One in particular was the option given to local councils to hold virtual meetings, which has now lapsed. I know that my right hon. Friend prefers to embrace tradition before innovation, but will he and other Ministers note that there is a widespread desire for this option to be made permanently available? Will the Government therefore respond positively to this suggestion and bring forward legislation on the matter sooner rather than later?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would require primary legislation. I am not convinced of the strength of argument for it in ordinary times. I think that meetings are best when held together and there is better democratic accountability when people are together and able to have the informal, as well as the formal, conversations that take place in council meetings. Much the same is true for this House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of all the people in Northern Ireland—the vast majority of them anyway—and my constituents in Strangford, I would like to offer my congratulations to the English team. We are very pleased as Northern Ireland supporters, and I am one of those, to let them use our song “Sweet Caroline”, and we rejoice in the singing of it at Wembley or wherever it may be. We will join in singing this anthem on Sunday and look forward to many glorious times if all goes well.
According to Open Doors, Christians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite making up more than 95% of the population, are facing soaring violence in that country. In fact, the Democratic Republic of the Congo rose 17 places this year on the Open Doors world watch list of countries where Christians are the most persecuted. The DRC Christian population and churches are said to be at huge risk of violence in the east of the country, where Islamic terrorists groups the Allied Democratic Forces and the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda operate. One million people are displaced internally, and Christians have been targeted with killings, kidnappings, forced labour and torture, while Christian women are particularly vulnerable to rape and sexual slavery. It is an absolute tragedy happening as we sit in this Chamber. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or an urgent statement on this matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank both the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and Open Doors for the incredible work it does as an organisation. They are both important voices for the rights of persecuted Christians. The UK and Her Majesty’s Government are concerned about violence against all communities, whatever their religion or belief, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The violence is symptomatic of a broader picture of instability in eastern DRC. Her Majesty’s Government continue to urge the DRC Government and the United Nations to work together to protect civilians from continuing violence and to address the root causes of conflict. We are committed to ensuring that the UN peacekeeping mission remains focused on delivering its mandate to protect civilians and that vulnerable communities remain central to the United Nations work in the DRC. The hon. Gentleman is probably more adept at using the House’s procedures than any other Member, so I hardly need remind him that Foreign Office questions are on 20 July, but I will in the meantime pass on his concerns to the Foreign Office.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
In September, I will be running the Montane dragon’s back race and attempting to run 230 miles, over twice the ascent of Everest. I am very happy for my right hon. Friend to join me on the world’s toughest mountain race from Conwy castle to Cardiff castle along the spine of Wales. On a serious note, I am doing it for two amazing organisations: for the Wolves Foundation, which does so much work across Wolverhampton, particularly for the most vulnerable; and also for Elysium Memorial, which is raising awareness of veterans suicide—I have personally lost friends I served with. Will my right hon. Friend commit more time in this House to discuss such an important topic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is considerably more energetic than I am. I think I would find it hard to do 2.3 miles, let alone 230 miles, and I might need the resuscitation that our hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) raised earlier.
To come to my hon. Friend’s very serious point, I wish him well in his fundraising efforts for both foundations. On the issue of veterans suicide, this is a matter of the greatest responsibility for Government and parliamentarians. We ask people to put their lives on the line for the safety, security and peace of our nation, and we have a duty to them for the rest of their lives for what they have given or have been prepared to sacrifice on behalf of the nation. I am grateful to him for the work he is doing, and I can assure him that it is an issue the Government take with the utmost seriousness.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The proof of the levelling-up pudding is in the eating for a community like Denton and Reddish, my own, which I proudly represent. I have submitted bids to the Government for both the Restoring Your Railway fund to provide important rail links for Reddish South and Denton stations, which are currently served by just one train a week, and the levelling-up fund to restore the old library, fire station and swimming baths complex in Reddish and turn it into a mixed community, leisure and employment growth hub for start-up businesses. As another conduit from Parliament to the Executive, can the Leader of the House please use his good offices to ensure that both these bids get fair consideration from Ministers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the effort that he is making and for ensuring that all sources available for his community are explored. Again, it shows an element of desire for cross-party working, which I think is beneficial to our public life. I can assure him that all bids will be fairly considered, but I will pass on his comments to the relevant Secretary of State.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on Places for Everyone and its relationship to individual councils’ local plans in the Greater Manchester area? Bury Metropolitan Borough Council has not had an updated local plan since 1997 and is ignoring recent Government guidance on the protection of the green belt, which would safeguard precious areas of countryside at Elton reservoir, Tottington and Walshaw in my constituency. Councils such as Bury should be required to have updated local plans before entering into joint development strategies such as Places for Everyone, to ensure a localised planning system that responds to the concerns of local residents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the need to involve residents in the creation of local development plans. I assure him that that principle is at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is achieving. The national policy is clear:
“The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area”.
The planning Bill will create a simpler, faster and more modern planning system, ensuring that homes and infrastructure can be delivered more quickly across England.
I would say that not updating a plan since 1997 seems to me an example of bureaucratic treacle—and the treacle should be baked away.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the huge increase in scammers and fraudsters targeting our constituents. Our constituents are advised by the police to contact Action Fraud; Action Fraud cannot investigate, so it goes back to the police anyway. The end result is too often that constituents do not hear any more. I appreciate that there is a volume problem, but can we have a debate about how we can better protect our constituents from these fraudsters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an issue that every Member of this House will be concerned about and that will have been raised in all our constituency surgeries. Reports submitted to Action Fraud are considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and evaluated to assess the information available that could assist an investigation. Data matching allows reports from different parts of the country to be linked through analysis. The hope is that that can lead to trends being identified and to action being taken to address these threats. However, I agree that more needs to be done; one often finds that constituents’ cases are not investigated in the way that they would like.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am sure that, like me, the Leader of the House will have been contacted during the covid pandemic by many constituents who have asthma. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health produced a report and recommendations on asthma outcomes, but does he know that the House has not had a debate on asthma since 2006—and that that was an Adjournment debate? Can we have a debate in Government time on asthma outcomes in the UK, to discuss the recommendations of the report and how we can support our constituents who suffer from asthma?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises an important subject that many in this House will be concerned about. I must confess I am surprised that there has not been a debate on it since 2006, although I think it is more an issue for the Backbench Business Committee or for a Westminster Hall debate than for—as she will have heard when I read out the business—a very full Government programme between now and the recess.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Many residents in Kensington work in financial services and other professional services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that financial services are a vital industry, contributing 11% of our total tax take, and that we need to prioritise services when we negotiate future trade agreements? Would he consider a debate on the importance of financial services not only to London but to Scotland, Leeds, Bristol and many other places?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am extremely well aware of the importance of financial services, as I spent a number of decades working in the investment management field, and I am well aware of the particular importance of Edinburgh as a financial capital. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. Financial services are very strong, vibrant and flexible, which is what has led to their success. In reality, their ability to attract business from around the world has had more to do with their efficiency, their competitiveness and the collection of skills that they bring together than with particular agreements with other countries. Although of course we must discuss financial services with foreign nations, actually the City will do best if it is fleet of foot, capable and competitive.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
A group of my constituents have reported their employer, Horizon Care Homes Ltd, to the Pensions Regulator for allegedly failing to pay its pension contributions into the Government’s NEST—National Employment Savings Trust—pension scheme. I have contacted the regulator and they have informed me that they are legally unable to give me any information about their investigation, even with my constituent’s consent. This makes it extremely hard for me to assist them. Will the Leader of the House support me in allowing a debate in this Chamber to ensure that MPs can gain appropriate access to the information needed to assist our constituents facing problems with their pensions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am going to answer this question slightly tentatively, because I am calling on memory of what I think the law says about giving information to Members. My understanding and memory are that businesses are not obliged to give information to Members, but there is an exemption in the data protection rules that allows them to give information if they choose to do so. So my understanding is that this is a refusal of the organisation to give information under its own procedures, not one by law. Therefore, I would encourage and support the hon. Lady in continuing to put pressure on the organisation not to be obstructive of Members of Parliament doing their job.
I did come across this once on behalf of a constituent of mine, where a particular bank refused to give information, even with the support of the constituent, erroneously quoting data protection rules. If that is the case, I think the hon. Lady is in a strong position with the Pensions Regulator. I think it is their rules, rather than our laws, but I will check this and if I am not correct I will write and put the letter in the Library.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
11.31 am
Sitting suspended.
International Travel
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I do not underestimate for a second just how difficult the last 16 months have been for those who have not been able to travel to see their families, for travel and tourism and for the aviation sector itself of course, and no Minister, let alone the Transport Secretary, would ever want to curtail our freedom and ask people not to travel, but protecting public health has rightly been, and will continue to be, the overriding priority of this Government, which is why we introduced some of the toughest border measures in the world.
However, thanks to our brilliant vaccination programme, we are now in a position where we can start to think about how we live with coronavirus, while returning life to a sense of normality. Last week, I said at this Dispatch Box that the Government intended to ease restrictions on fully vaccinated travellers returning from amber list countries. I am now pleased to be able to provide more detail.
As one of the world’s most vaccinated countries, we must use these advantages to restore many of the freedoms that have been necessarily lost over recent months. So I can confirm today that from 19 July UK residents who are fully vaccinated through the UK vaccine roll-out will no longer have to self-isolate when they return to England. They will still be required to take a test three days before returning—the pre-departure test—demonstrating that they are negative before they travel and a PCR test on or before day two, but they will no longer be required to take a day eight test. In essence, this means that, for fully vaccinated travellers, the requirements for green and amber list countries are the same. To be clear, a full vaccination means 14 days have passed since someone’s final dose of the vaccine. It is also important to note that health matters are devolved, so decision making and implementation may differ across UK Administrations. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure we achieve our shared objectives of a safe, sustainable and robust return to international travel.
The change I am announcing today will prioritise those vaccinated in the UK. However, as I made clear last week, we want to welcome international visitors back to the UK and are working to extend our approach to vaccinated passengers from important markets and holiday destinations later this summer, such as the United States and the European Union. I will update the House in due course on how we approach vaccinated individuals from other countries.
When I highlighted the potential policy to the House last week, I explained that we needed to take some additional time to look at the evidence on children, who will not, of course, have been able to benefit from vaccines, and how they will be treated. I can tell the House today that children under 18 returning from amber list countries will not have to isolate on their return, nor take a day eight test. Children between the ages of five and 10 will only need to take a day two test. As before, children aged four and under will be exempt from all testing and isolation requirements. I know this was a big concern of families. After working with scientists and public health experts, I am delighted to be able to offer that reassurance today.
The success of our vaccine programme has been aided by those selflessly creating the great benefits for society and for the rest of the world by being part of the clinical trials, without which we would not have this vaccine programme. We committed to ensuring they are not disadvantaged as a result of being part of those trials, and I am delighted to announce that those on approved clinical trials in the UK will also not need to self-isolate, or take the day eight test after arrival from an amber list country. Passengers will need to prove their vaccination status, either through the covid pass, which is available on the main NHS app, not the covid app, or via the accessible letter, which can be obtained by calling 119, for those without access to smartphones. Passengers returning to England will be asked to include their vaccination status on their passenger locator form if they wish to benefit from the exemption to self-isolate. Transport operators and carriers will be required to check a passenger’s proof of being fully vaccinated before they are able to get on the form of transport.
The Government have been working closely with international partners on restarting international travel safely through certification. I am pleased to announce to the House today that more than 30 countries and territories are now recognising vaccine certification as part of entry requirements, and either accepting the proof of vaccination letter or the NHS app. We will continue to increase that number, so that the NHS app becomes the natural default. Passengers should of course check Foreign Office travel advice to understand the latest entry requirements and covid-19 rules at their destination.
We know that travel is important and that many people have not been able to travel for the last year and a half. This is not, of course, just about holidays, eager as we are for time in the sun; it is also about reuniting families who have been apart throughout the pandemic. It is about helping businesses to trade and grow and supporting the aviation sector, which hundreds of thousands of jobs rely on. The Government have backed that industry through £7 billion of support through this pandemic. As they tell me, the support is of course very welcome, but the only way to actually recover is to allow them to fly and for travel to resume again.
That is why I am also pleased to announce that, from 19 July, we will remove the guidance that people should not travel to countries on the amber list. That means that people will be able to travel to amber list countries for leisure and business and to see family. I am sure the whole House will welcome that development and our approach to international travel.
However, I want to be clear that, as we begin to ease restrictions, travel will not be the same as it was in, say, 2019. People should continue to check Foreign Office travel advice and, where possible, travel outside busy weekend times. Importantly, they should expect that their experience at the border will be different, because longer waiting times will be necessitated by the risks, even as we introduce and expand the range of e-gates available to read the passenger locator forms. Public health remains our key priority, which is why we will not make any changes to requirements applying to those arriving from countries on the red list, even where they are fully vaccinated.
The measures I have announced today have been designed in close co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary, along with medical and scientific experts, to ensure we can continue to minimise the risk of new variants. As many of us know from personal travel experience, the Government will not hesitate to act if required and the data suggests that needs to happen. In other words—to put this on the record—an amber list country could still turn red, necessitating a change in behaviour when people return to the UK. Indeed, if a country goes into red, there will be mandatory hotel quarantine.
The UK has achieved many hard-won gains through our successful vaccination programme and the continued spirit and determination of the British people. We continue to encourage people to take up the vaccine when offered, not only to protect themselves but to restore previous freedoms more safely.
19 July will mark the next step of this cautious reopening of international travel. Thanks to the Government’s incredible success with the vaccine programme, people in England will be able to travel more easily to visit family and friends who they have not seen for a long time, and also get business moving again, kickstarting our economy while keeping the UK safe and supporting a wide range of jobs and industries in the process. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
When I questioned the Secretary of State on publishing the data, he said:
“The JCVI and Public Health England do indeed publish their methodology and the data behind it for each of these countries. It is already published.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 141.]
However, the assessment of 15 June has only published limited data on 22 countries and even that very limited data shows absolutely no data on incoming passenger testing and no data for new variant testing for some of the countries that were moved to the green list, including the Balearics.
The debate last time focused on India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, yet none of those countries has had the data published; nor have the countries that are critical to our economy, including the US, Canada and the vast majority of the EU. When the full data is published, will the Secretary of State ensure that it shows a very clear direction of travel for each and every country to instil travel confidence once more? Will he finally allow a full review of the delay in adding India to the red list, alongside Pakistan and Bangladesh, which led to the rapid spread of the Johnson variant, which he knows has delayed the easing of restrictions in the UK?
I also note that, in just a week, the Government have effectively taken our suggestion to scrap the confused amber list, but it is not clear whether some of the countries that are currently on the amber list should be moved to the red list. Can the Secretary of State confirm that a country-by-country assessment was carried out ahead of today’s statement?
As the Secretary of State will know, Labour has been calling for the introduction of an international vaccine passport. He states that an agreement has been reached with 30 countries to accept UK vaccination status. So far, that list has not been published and it is not clear what pre-testing and arrival testing will be needed.
I welcome a common-sense approach that will allow children to travel with their vaccinated parents and carers. Will he confirm that every single one of the 30 countries that he says will now accept NHS vaccination status will allow children to travel without additional restrictions?
The Secretary of State will know that, in addition to the uncertainty around the travel list, the cost of testing is turning away would-be travellers. PCR tests often cost more than £100 a person. The Government could stop the rip-off we are seeing from private testing companies by instead using spare capacity in the NHS testing sites, supported by an updated NHS app, which would confirm testing status alongside vaccination status. We know that testing is a critical element of limiting the spread of covid. Will the Secretary of State take forward these suggestions and finally make meaningful progress?
When I asked the Secretary of State what action was being taken to open up transatlantic routes, he said that a US-UK working group had met the week before “for the first time”, yet no update has been provided on that today. How many more times has the group met since then? What progress has been made?
The international travel community and the tourism sector needed the Government to really step up, but I am afraid that Ministers have found themselves wanting. Labour is clear that the Government must follow the example of other countries by intervening and bringing forward a sectoral deal to protect jobs. Why have the Government still not brought forward such a deal, when the Chancellor promised it nearly a year ago?
When I visited Heathrow last month, it pointed out that more than a quarter of its cost base goes in fees and levies to Government. If Ministers do not want a holistic support package, can they at least look at the fees that are paid directly to the Government? On Eurostar, why has it not had the same business rates support as aviation, as an international travel operator? There should be a level playing field.
The announcement did not cover mask wearing. It is pretty clear that the Government have been all over the place on mask wearing, despite masks reducing the risk of passing on the virus to other people, especially and critically on public transport. Why does the Secretary of State believe that they should now be the subject of personal choice? Like me, will he commit to continuing to wear his mask on public transport?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman mentions the JBC data. The methodology is on the website, as I have mentioned before. I am sure it will continue to publish a full range of analysis as more countries are moved about and we have the next review of the green, red and amber lists on 15 July.
The hon. Gentleman brings up India every time we speak. It does not matter how many times that we explain the fact that we put India on the red list two weeks before it became a variant of concern, and a week ahead of it being a variant of interest, he continues to come to the House and make that point time and again.
He mentions the list of 30 locations that are accepting either the NHS app or an NHS letter. That is already published and available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website, which gives me the opportunity to stress that when somebody travels to any location, they will want to use the FCDO website as the bible on the requirements on entry and departure from that country.
I want to update the hon. Gentleman and the House on one late change. Not just children travelling with adults, but all children will be exempt in the same way as somebody who is double-vaccinated.
He mentions the cost of tests. I have come to the Dispatch Box before and agreed that the cost of tests was too high. I am very pleased that, since May, costs have continued to be driven down as more than 400 providers have stepped up to the plate to produce tests. I was looking at the detail this morning. There are tests as inexpensive as a tenner, albeit that those tests are in person, but there are quite a number of tests now for much lower prices than previously.
He asks for an update on the US-UK working group that Biden and the Prime Minister announced. That work is ongoing. Those meetings are taking place each and every week. As I have explained to the House before, there are quite a lot of technicalities to overcome, not least an executive order from the previous US Administration—212(f)—which actually bans travel for anyone who has been in the UK or Europe for the 14 days previous. We are working through those issues with them. They are currently being held at official level.
On support for the industry, it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not reflect what the industry itself is saying. I noticed that the Airport Operators Association is saying that this is a significant step forward that it widely welcomes, and that people will be able to get away on a “well-deserved break”. Airlines UK, which represents the airlines, says:
“This is a positive move towards the genuine reopening”
of the sector. Once again, it warmly welcomes this move.
The hon. Gentleman says, “Labour have been clear”, but I have to say that it is anything but clear. What is clear is that there is a division between him and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). First, the Opposition wanted quarantine lessened; then they wanted everyone in a hotel; then they wanted it to be done on a case-by-case basis; then they wanted to shut down travel, open up travel, put everyone on the red list and put more countries on the green list. This is not a policy. It is just plain politics.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. This is the first step in opening up Britain for business. However, I note that in his statement he said that people should expect that their experience at the border may be different, with longer waiting times than before. When queues at the border have been a problem in the past, extra staff have been brought in, including from other Government Departments, to support Border Force. Will my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, guarantee that every effort will be made to bring in extra resources and deploy staff in different ways, including changing staff rotas at Border Force, to ensure that there can be a smooth movement of people through our borders and that we do not see inordinately long queues?
Grant Shapps
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s question. She is absolutely right. I have been working with the Home Secretary and Border Force on exactly that issue. I should perhaps be a little more specific about where travellers might expect queues. Quite a lot of the checking will be done upstream—in other words, before people board the aircraft, train or boat, at the location from which they are returning. Queues at check-in abroad may, in fact, be the place where those problems most exist. Many airlines are developing systems to further automate that process, but they will be doing quite a complicated job, checking the passenger locator form against the booked test still required on day two and, of course, vaccine status. I think it is fair to warn people who are travelling this summer that it is a process that we have not had to do before. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important that the borders at this end are as smooth as possible. Indeed, a lot of investment is going into automating all that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
I share the concerns of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), about the lack of transparency in the data, and the Secretary of State’s answers on that were simply not good enough. We need to see more data and more quickly than we are at the moment. Although I welcome the thrust of the statement, I think the Secretary of State is being just a little disingenuous when he said the industry tells him that support is welcome and they need to get flying again. In and of itself, that is of course correct, but what he did not say is that that industry is still crying out for further support, because most of the industry has not had grant support, despite being the hardest hit sector in the economy.
I have said a number of times in the last few weeks that Glasgow Airport in my constituency has lost a third of the workforce that is based on site. That is 2,000 jobs gone locally at the airport and well over another 1,000 jobs beyond the airport that are connected to aviation. The Scottish summer season is already well over two weeks old and by the time this policy kicks in for England, teachers in my area will be back in schools three weeks thereafter, so only a very short window remains. The Government must therefore extend furlough for the sector—no ifs, no buts. Although this announcement will help, the number of passengers will still be significantly down, so the need for a sector-specific support package is still very clear.
From the outset, the Scottish Government have said that caution is required regarding international travel and people should think carefully about travelling abroad, as situations can suddenly change. The Scottish Government will continue to work closely with the other home nations and are cautiously supportive of exploring options for the easing of restrictions for fully vaccinated travellers arriving from countries on the amber list, but only if the clinical advice supports it and the systems are in place to ensure the wider safety of the Scottish population.
Rumours have circulated for months about robust Cabinet discussions on international travel, with, among others, the previous Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster often on one side, and the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport on the other. One cannot help but note the change of pace in the changes to international travel now that the new Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), is in place. How can plans for an ambitious return of travel be made if the UK Government’s rush to unlock domestically, with 100,000 cases a day and so on, means that other countries close their borders to UK travellers?
Lastly, as has been said, mask wearing on aircraft and, indeed, all public transport is to most of us a no-brainer. As the Secretary of State did not address the shadow Secretary of State’s question, I will ask it again: will mask wearing on aircraft be compulsory? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will continue to wear a mask on all public transport?
Grant Shapps
I should point out that the change of pace is because we now have a situation in which the majority of adults in the UK are fully vaccinated. That was not the case a month ago, when we postponed step 4; it is the case now. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I was in fact already discussing the changes with the previous Health Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that I omitted to mention masks; I should bring the House up to speed. We will still provide, in guidance, information about mask wearing. We know that it is sensible in more enclosed spaces, and personally I will wear a mask where it is appropriate to do so. The airlines have already said that mask wearing is a condition of carriage in, I think, all the cases that I have seen, and where it is a condition of carriage, I will of course always wear one. On the other hand, if we are talking about being in an empty carriage on a long-distance train for many hours, people will use their common sense, which is something that we on the Government Benches absolutely applaud and agree with. We are pleased to be able to get back to a guidance situation.
The hon. Gentleman is a doughty campaigner for Glasgow airport and often challenges me on these matters; I have to say to him that he might want to look a little bit closer to home. It is only very recently—in June—that the Scottish Government banned Scots from travelling to Manchester. As a direct result, easyJet cancelled new routes that would have connected a whole bunch of Scottish airports. No wonder the Scottish Passenger Agents’ Association has said that the Scottish Government’s approach to aviation is sacrificing the industry. I am afraid a lot of the answers the hon. Gentleman is looking for are closer to home. Meanwhile, the UK Government have provided £7 billion of support to the sector. I notice that the opening up announced today has so far yet to be reflected by Scottish Government announcements as well. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to help, he can help to move along the policy in Scotland.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Rejoice, rejoice! This is a much-needed shot in the arm for those who have had two shots of the vaccine in their arm, and for an industry and workforce who have been laid low during the pandemic—perhaps more than others—but have always been confident and steadfast in their belief that we can all travel safely again.
In welcoming this announcement, may I ask the Secretary of State also to keep an eye on the testing regime? We know that only 0.4% of those who have come back from amber destinations over the past couple of months have tested positive for covid. Can we perhaps look at the testing costs, which are still a barrier for those travelling? It would be great if, rather than people having to take an expensive PCR test, lateral flow tests could be used instead, and those who do test positive could then take a PCR test. I will look to the Secretary of State to keep on championing those kinds of ideas. Will he also make sure that the Foreign Office advice and website is as up-to-date as he is on this matter?
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. Friend, who does a superb job as the Chair of the Select Committee and has been very consistent in his support for the aviation sector. He will be interested to know, as will the whole House, that we will have a further review date on 31 July. That is a checkpoint for the rules themselves. Currently, the scientific evidence is that PCR tests, in addition to being a bit more accurate, are also the ones in respect of which the genomes can be quickly sequenced to look for variants. My hon. Friend’s point about the FCDO and ensuring that all the advice ties together is well understood; we will make sure we work closely on that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary warned of a considerable spike in infections, with perhaps 100,000 positive cases detected every day. That will clearly put pressure on our testing services, but it will also have a chilling effect on inbound travel, as people choose to travel to nations with lower infection rates. What kind of compensation is the Secretary of State looking to bring forward for the travel industry, because many travel companies in my constituency have really struggled over the past year as a result of the lack of Government support? Will he ensure that the support is long term, so that these companies have a bridge into their future?
Grant Shapps
It is of course true that there is a third wave, given the delta variant. We in the United Kingdom are in the fortunate position of having our exceptional vaccination programme, which will allow us to open up on 19 July—provided that is confirmed on Monday. I have described from the Dispatch Box today how we will allow people who have been vaccinated through the UK vaccination programme to travel to amber list countries and to return, treating those countries as if they were on the green list. On the other side of that, we will work on a second phase to enable people to travel here. I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that that can restart as soon as possible. We need to be able to trust other vaccination programmes and verify that those travelling here have had a particular type of test, of course. That is the best way to help travel firms in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I must point out that £7 billion is not a drop in the ocean. A lot of money has been spent supporting the travel sector, and we are proud to have done that, but the best thing will be to get the sector open again.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
This announcement is a big step in the right direction and will provide a much-needed boost for the travel sector, so I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. It also provides a meaningful choice of holiday destinations for families looking to go abroad this summer. However, the Secretary of State will be aware—the Chair of the Transport Committee touched on this—that testing requirements remain costly and burdensome, especially for families. He mentioned 31 July, but will he also commit to keeping the testing under regular review, and can he look not only at the cost but at the bureaucracy that goes with it, because that also has an impact on families going on holiday?
Grant Shapps
I certainly welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome of the policy. On the cost of testing, the narrative tends to run a little behind what is happening in the real world, so I jumped on the gov.uk website this morning to take a look, and there are some very inexpensive tests available. The cheapest I saw was £4.95, although that was quite specific because it referred to an individual test centre, which might be nowhere near. Let us assume that the costs are higher than that, but recognise that they are no longer the hundreds of pounds quoted in the spring. I want to see the costs continue to be driven down. I give him an assurance that we will carry on working with the scientists and looking at the data. We will not be testing people for a moment longer than is required, but our primary responsibility is to protect people in the UK. We do not want a variant to come in that we simply fail to pick up.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
I warmly welcome this statement, which finally restores to us some of the freedoms that our European neighbours and Americans have been enjoying for some considerable time. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly, the green list testing requirements will still leave travel more restricted this summer than it was last summer, when we did not have the vaccines. As he will understand, reciprocity is absolutely vital for travel, and the lack of immediate reciprocity for other countries means that they are less likely to open up to us anytime soon. So why, when many European countries already accept our vaccine passport, are we incapable of accepting theirs now?
Grant Shapps
Of course reciprocity is very important. I have already explained the situation with the United States, and reciprocity would involve it not having Executive Order 212(f) in place, which would immediately relieve some of the issues. They still have 50 different ways to verify tests, because there is no central system—each state has its own version. The European example is better, as the right hon. Gentleman says. I am working very closely with my European counterparts and in regular contact with them. We wanted to have a first phase in place as quickly as possible—easy to verify through the UK vaccine programme—but we will move as quickly as possible to the next phase, to satisfy his concerns, working with other countries, including on the EU digital passport.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome this statement from the Secretary of State and also his restatement of the significant financial support being given to the sector. Is it his judgment that these changes will allow the sector to stand on its own feet from a business viability perspective, or are we still going to have to put significant sums of public money into it? We need to have this debate, because every bit of caution that people advocate comes with a price tag that must be met by the taxpayer, and that debate is essential as we go forward.
Grant Shapps
It is worth reflecting that this country is leading the way. I was having a look at which other major economies in Europe are going for an unlock as we expect and hope to do on 19 July, subject to confirmation next Monday, and I do not see any other countries that are opening up domestically quite as much. I know my right hon. Friend agrees that it is time to learn to live with the coronavirus. We have many advantages this year that we did not have last year, including easily available testing that is much reduced in price, and vaccination and immunisation that is accessible to all adults. That means that we can move to what will, I think, become the new world of aviation. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, from my conversations with the aviation sector in particular I know that many of them have downsized but are now ready to start upsizing gradually as we come out of what has been the most horrendous couple of years on record for that sector.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Not only has the Government’s hotel quarantining policy been an utter mess, but the handling of complaints and of the legitimate calls for exemption has been painfully slow by official channels. I have had toddlers left without milk and kids so poorly nourished in these hotels that ambulances have been called out. Some people have been left without access to drinking water, and families in Luton are being charged nearly two and a half grand for it. Can the Secretary of State tell me who is making a profit from these astronomical charges, and why there is no discount for people on low incomes?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight these cases and fight for her constituents. I just want to point out that the figure that is charged at the moment does not make a profit for the Government. In fact, it is still being somewhat subsidised in the process. I also want to point out that people should not be travelling to red-list countries. The only people who should be coming back to Government quarantine are British or Irish citizens or people with permanent rights of residence, and there should be a limit to the number of people who are still abroad and wishing to return. I sometimes come across cases where people are still using the red list as if it is a case of “It’s okay, I can come back and hotel quarantine.” That should not be the case. However, if the hon. Lady has individual cases, I am concerned to hear about them. The system is handled by the Department of Health and I would be very happy to pass them on.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has quite rightly sounded a note of caution in saying that anyone who chooses to travel to an amber list country needs to be prepared for the possibility that it could become a red list country before they return. What happens if someone has booked to travel to an amber list country and it becomes red before they travel? Has he had discussions with the travel industry and the travel insurance industry to determine whether passengers will be entitled to a refund in those circumstances, or will they simply have to sacrifice their holiday and lose all their money?
Grant Shapps
The travel industry has stepped up to the plate, by and large. For nearly everywhere that people can book—I encourage consumers to take a look—people are able to get a guarantee of a refund or a change of date if there is a change in status, and holiday insurance has become quite adept as well. The Government have also tried to assist. For example, under the Air Travel Organisers Licensing scheme—ATOL—people used to be able to get only a cash refund, but we have made those vouchers effectively Government guaranteed, so that people can take them with assurance. That is also helping the travel sector to weigh up its difficulties with cash flow.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am working very closely with the travel industry. He is absolutely right to raise the case. The most important thing that people can do is check before they book—particularly now, particularly this year—to make sure that refunds and rebooking are allowed in their contract.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State’s statement will be a lifeline to the aviation industry which he has done so much to try to support throughout the pandemic. Inbound tourism is clearly very important to the economy of the United Kingdom; I therefore hope that he will be successful in swiftly ensuring that overseas visitors, not just returning British passengers, will be able to enter the United Kingdom relatively easily and safely. I hope my right hon. Friend will also be able to work with the FCDO to ensure that all World Health Organisation-approved vaccines are accepted in overseas countries, particularly including European Union countries such as France.
Finally, with reference to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), will the Secretary of State ensure that there are facilities not only at airports, but at the channel ports particularly, to ensure the swift flow of passengers?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely hear the call for inbound tourism, which I have heard from both sides of the House. We are working on that as phase 2; there are some further complications with how to accept different proofs of vaccine, but I absolutely agree with the idea that, as a very good basis, we should accept vaccines that have been approved by the World Health Organisation.
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about not just airports but other types of port. Those around the channel tunnel are, of course, some of the busiest in the country. I think that it is right to tell people that the additional checks are likely to cause delays on both sides of the channel this summer. They will want to prepare and plan their journeys with supplies and ensure that they pick the best time of day to travel to avoid such delays. I am already working closely with my French counterpart to minimise any delays as much as possible.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but the latest stats from the Office for National Statistics on the coronavirus job retention scheme show that 57% of employees in the passenger air transport sector remain on furlough. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor to extend the furlough to avoid a job crisis in the aviation sector before it ends?
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Lady knows, the furlough scheme is part of a national scheme. UK-wide, it has supported those in aviation and across the economy. Of course, it is starting to wind down through September, which is why today’s announcement is particularly timely: because it gives aviation and travel companies the ability to get going again. I hope that, closer to home, the hon. Lady will put pressure on the Scottish Government to follow. At the moment, it seems that Scottish Members are calling for more support, but the most important thing of all—allowing the airlines to fly—does not seem to be forthcoming from the Scottish Government.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that not only football, but air travel, is coming home. I will not repeat colleagues’ points about clarity, testing, self-isolation, wearing a face mask and all the rest of it, but will my right hon. Friend please reassure me that as a result of his announcement there is absolutely no need for London Southend airport to stage more night flights? They really do cause a nuisance to local residents.
Grant Shapps
I congratulate my hon. Friend on shoehorning two things into his question: first, 45 minutes since anyone has mentioned coming home, he got it into aviation, and secondly, he mentioned night flights, which were not entirely part of my announcement today. I know that Southend airport is very important to his local economy. I will not comment on the night flights position specifically, but I was relieved to see that flights will be able to continue there after the operator experienced difficulties recently.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
I, too, welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. However, I would like to understand what he is doing to fix the issue with the quarantine hotels. My 34-weeks pregnant constituent who returned to the UK was quarantined in Greenwich at the O2 InterContinental hotel. On days one and two she ended up in hospital, on day six she was denied travel to hospital for a scan, and by day eight she had lost her baby and spent four days in ICU because she nearly lost her life. Will he meet me to discuss getting quarantining right for families, and especially the tragic case of my constituent?
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the package. I am very, very sorry to hear about the situation that she outlines. Of course everybody in a quarantine hotel should have access to medical assistance. I am not aware of the details but I am happy to help to arrange for the correct Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care to meet her to discuss her constituent’s case.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the announcement from my right hon. Friend, which will make such a huge difference to families wanting to see their relatives, to businesses in my constituency, and of course to people who want to go on holiday.
Can I come back to the point on reciprocity? While we can ease the measures domestically, what happens when people land on the other side also impacts their ability to work, see relatives and so on. Ideally, we want international safety standards and an international approach that is synchronous across all nations. Will he update the House on his discussions on taking that forward?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this subject. He has done a great deal in talking about safety standards and campaigning to get to a situation where we can help to reopen things. He is right to talk about reciprocity. He will be interested to hear that I chaired a meeting of the G7 Transport Secretaries with my equivalents earlier in the year and will do so again later in the year. Our drive is to introduce those international standards, because clearly coronavirus is not going away any time soon and we want to make sure that an internationally recognised system is in place. We are doing our part, since we have been chairing the G7, to make sure that those standards are recognised globally.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
We find ourselves in a position where previous failures of the UK Government have left us as a centre for a new variant. How does the Secretary of State’s plan for ending quarantine take account of keeping future new variants out and the consequent impact that this may have on the ability of UK citizens to travel?
Grant Shapps
First, I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have had one of the most rigorous border check systems in place. When I was in the House only last week, I think that every single speaker in all parts of the House urged an opening up, so I am interested to hear his views. Secondly, the steps in place still require a pre-departure test and a PCR test on or before day two in order that it can be sequenced, and there is all the other guidance that exists as well.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. These are absolutely the right measures to be taking. However, can I encourage him as soon as possible to go further and look to expand the number of green list countries to which international travel is possible, particularly working in the US-UK travel taskforce? It is estimated that every day we do not have meaningful transatlantic flights is costing the UK economy some £23 million?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work and campaigning on this subject; his constituency is greatly impacted by the success or otherwise of aviation. Yes, we will certainly look at which countries fall into the red, amber and green categories. For the purpose of clarity for the House it is probably helpful to say that the next review will take place on 15 July—so there is not long to wait—and there are then two checkpoints, one on 31 July to look at the system and its operation in total and then on 1 October, which are already in the programme going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update, as always. What steps have been taken with the Republic of Ireland Government to ensure that the correct tests are taken as assessments? This was an issue for a constituent of mine and his pregnant wife only on Monday past: a Ryanair-supplied test was deemed insufficient and around 300 people were placed in a quarantine hotel with no idea at all of just what had happened and what had gone wrong. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that the right information will be conveyed to the travel sector so as to make international travel as smooth and understandable as possible?
Grant Shapps
I was not familiar with that Republic of Ireland situation, but I undertake to speak to my opposite number—we do speak regularly—and receive an update, and perhaps write a letter to the hon. Gentleman with information to take the case further.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I realise that this is not his decision, but what additional evidence does his statement provide to help the House of Commons authorities in their deliberations on whether my delegation can return to Europe?
Grant Shapps
Far be it for me to get between my hon. Friend and the House authorities, but I do have to say it is time for those delegations to be able to return.
We have today set out a form of travel where amber can be treated as green and where double vaccination—or I should say full vaccination, because some people will have a single vaccination in the future—plus 14 days provides reason to travel, and I very much hope that that then brings to a conclusion this long-running situation where my hon. Friend and others have not been able to travel to important Council of Europe and other business.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
The newly appointed Health Secretary has said that the UK Government’s policy of returning to normal may lead to as many as 100,000 covid cases per day. It is entirely possible that these case rates, uncontrolled by the UK Government, could lead to further curbs on UK travellers abroad. How will the Secretary of State’s plans announced today accommodate these projected domestic case rates?
Grant Shapps
It is important to know that we are in a different phase of this coronavirus now, as never before have we had the majority of our population double vaccinated, and everyone is welcome to come forward—and, indeed, should come forward—if they have not been for their vaccinations yet. The rest of the world is not quite in that situation as yet but will want to get itself to that position.
For us, therefore, increasingly the focus is not so much on the specific case rates—after all, we are not vaccinating children yet, and we wait for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to let us know whether it is scientifically proven and advisable to do so— but on hospitalisations and deaths. Other countries will experience the same thing, and there is no reason, as we have seen throughout the coronavirus, to think that one country’s epidemiological situation is different from another’s. We know that while we may have been suffering from the delta variant, other countries, sadly, will be in the future; I hope that they can get themselves vaccinated in time.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
The whole travel industry will welcome today’s decision, which will help build confidence in the industry and among passengers. Clear and concise guidance will be needed quickly for airports, airlines and travel agents to navigate the additional paperwork required to check passengers’ vaccination status, but given that some people cannot have the vaccine for medical reasons, what can be done to provide confidence that we are not moving towards a two-tier society?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the airline industry, for example, says that it is looking forward to working with the Government to continue this momentum and further open up markets—and I welcome his welcome for today’s announcement. He is also right to point out that there are some people who, for various reasons—I mentioned in my statement people who have been on a trial, for example—would not qualify under the normal circumstances. The other set of people, of course, are those who are clinically unable to have vaccinations for various reasons. We will bring forward guidance on all these issues.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
My constituent Tracy Crabb has been double-jabbed, but she is one of those who has had the Indian-manufactured Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which the EU currently does not recognise in its digital certificate travel scheme. That is absolutely crazy given that that drug is no different from the AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured here. Some European economic area countries have said they will still accept Covishield, but most have not yet, and France apparently considers people with that jab as being unvaccinated. What is the Secretary of State going to do to try to get some common sense on this issue, so that Tracy and thousands like her can enjoy some of the international travel freedoms he has just announced?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, of course. If the vaccine is recognised by the World Health Organisation, there is no excuse not to recognise it. We are working with our friends and colleagues in the EU and elsewhere, and I am pretty certain that this situation will be resolved.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making this statement, and for all the work he does behind the scenes to support the travel industry, but I have a concern. If I understand him right, amber countries can now be travelled to; the restriction has gone. However, the FCDO advice for those countries—Germany and Italy, for instance—is still that people should not undertake non-essential travel. Will that guidance be updated now for 19 July, so that people can plan in advance?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should explain two things. First, FCDO travel advice is about the danger for somebody in a country. Of course, that could be about covid, but it could also be about political unrest or some other natural or other crisis going on in that country, so it is by necessity different from the traffic light system. The traffic light system is interested in the risks posed by that person, having visited that country, on their return to the UK. However, my hon. Friend raises a very important point about the travel advice to people going to amber countries, which at the moment says “don’t” for the purposes of holidays, for example. We will be changing that advice for the 19th to make it clear that people can travel for holidays and other reasons.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I confess that I was quite surprised by the response that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on the issue of travel insurance, given that consumer body Which? has found that many travellers are
“being left with a false impression”
about the travel insurance protection they would enjoy in the event of covid-related disruption to their plans, with less than 1% of UK travel insurance policies providing people with full, comprehensive cover for covid-related disruption. In view of those concerns, will the Secretary of State undertake to have discussions with the travel insurance industry to ensure that consumers can have confidence that they are appropriately covered in the event of disruption to their travel plans?
Grant Shapps
I want to be clear with the House: it has involved some cajoling—that is what I would describe it as—to ensure that the travel industry is in the right place more times than not. I am aware of the Which? report that the hon. Lady refers to. I am also aware that the competition authorities have been looking at this and, in the case of one or two of the larger airlines, have taken action. It is very important—I hope that she will accept this—that the Government are very much on the side of consumers, and we want to see flexibility in the system. That is why we backed the ATOL system for vouchers to be accepted, to make it easier both for travellers and for the industry, and we will do everything we possibly can to assist. I am very happy to accept the hon. Lady’s offer and arrange for the Aviation Minister, and perhaps the appropriate Ministers across Government, to meet her and discuss this issue with her.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I warmly welcome this announcement. It will bring much relief to companies such as Travel the Globe, a very successful travel business based in my constituency that has struggled over the last 18 months of uncertainty, and to families and individuals hoping to travel and reunite with family. However, given that double-vaccination is key to unlocking international travel, what message does my right hon. Friend have for those who are still yet to book their second jab?
Grant Shapps
One of the things that is important is that people are fully vaccinated. That means with the vaccines we are using at the moment—two jabs—and then waiting for 14 days, they will be able to use the new dispensation we have announced today on amber list travel and not have to quarantine. The message is simple: if you have not booked your second vaccination and have had your first, please book. If you have not booked your first, book that. We have reduced the waiting time to eight weeks for those under 40. Please use this as the reason to get on the website and get yourself booked in for that second jab.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government made some major mistakes on our borders last year, but it is right that we move forward in a pragmatic and sensible way now in light of the success of the vaccine roll-out. I have heard from many constituents working in the travel industry in Cardiff South and Penarth in many small travel companies who have been hit hard by this crisis and want to see international travel resume in a safe way. Can the Secretary of State just be absolutely clear about the situation for residents in Wales? He says that UK residents who are fully vaccinated through the UK vaccine roll-out will not have to quarantine if they come back to England. Obviously, we will expect announcements in due course from the devolved Administrations about their own ports and airports, but is it correct that Welsh residents coming back into a UK airport—Heathrow or somewhere like that—will not have to quarantine?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I do want to stress that this is an announcement that I am making for England, but we are working closely with the devolved Administrations. There is, of course, only one international airport in Wales, which is Cardiff. I very much look forward to the Administration there coming to their own conclusions. They will also need to describe what happens, as was the case when we had country changes on and off the corridor list, to travellers who come to an English airport and then wish to travel across the border. I am sure that between the hon. Gentleman and I we can convince them to do the right thing, get on board with this, and enable both the English and the Welsh to travel with ease.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
I apologise to the Secretary of State if I missed it, but I did not hear one word in his statement about the international cruise ship industry, an industry which has now fulfilled the Government’s request for a crisis workshop with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and has taken the extraordinary step of agreeing to a memorandum of understanding on repatriation. Can he reassure the international cruise ship industry that, as he talks about increasing traffic between international airports and opening the international economy, he will not neglect that industry and the 88,000-plus UK jobs that are reliant on it?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress the importance of the cruise industry and he will be pleased when I tell him that that these moves do include cruises from 19 July. Indeed, we have enabled cruise ships to sail already with up to 50% capacity, where people have been double vaccinated. So yes, they are included, but I do have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a frustration that we have been allowing cruise ships in English waters, but that they have been banned from docking at Scottish ports for the past month or two. If he really wants to help those 80,000 people employed by the cruise sector, maybe he can start by talking to the Scottish Government about that.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today and I am listening very carefully to his answers. May I ask him just to clarify two of those answers? First, in regard to the amber list review, if one country is on the amber list on 31 July, by implication it will still be on the amber list until 1 October—is that correct? Secondly, given that VeriFLY and the EU digital travel passport are already in place, how quickly does he expect the UK to be able to join schemes to allow all foreign fully vaccinated travellers to come to the UK?
Grant Shapps
I must caution the House and everybody listening that of course it is the case that, while opening up today and making these announcements, an amber list country could in theory switch to being a red list country. I can provide my hon. Friend no such guarantee that from July to October there may not be changes. There could be. None the less, I think most realise by this stage that the path of the coronavirus is unpredictable and I hope that this double vaccination measure provides some reassurance. It can change quickly and I want to reassure him that we will always act to the best benefit of people securing their health going forward.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he consider issuing separate guidance for business travellers who have multiple short visits abroad? It is self-evident that they cannot take a test three days before returning if they have only a one or two-day visit, so given that many business travellers will undertake such visits, will he issue that guidance? Can he also give a commitment to publish the criteria on which the decision to place a country on the green, amber or red list is taken? If the travel industry knew what the criteria were and the methodology, it would have an idea of the direction of travel rather than having sudden events and deadlines imposed upon it.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the case of, for example, a business traveller who might go from A to B to C. One of the things that is little noticed is that a test is up to day 2—it is not a day 2 test per se. It might be helpful, though, if I were to write to him in more detail about the application and how that would work under this new system with regard to, for example, somebody travelling for business to many different places.
Finally, I am pleased to tell him that on the gov.uk website, the methodology for the Joint Biosecurity Centre is already set out. It does include subsections of a number of different criteria that apply. I often hear people say, “X country has fewer cases than we do, so why aren’t they on the green list?” The answer is probably that they are not sequencing their genome, they are not uploading it to the GISAID internationally recognised format, and perhaps they are not vaccinating people at quite the rate that we have. There are many different factors, but they are all set out by the JBC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I suspend the House for a few minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Afghanistan
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
With permission, I will make a statement on the UK’s policy towards Afghanistan. Twenty years ago, Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership had turned Afghanistan into the epicentre of global terrorism, where, in the words of the author Ahmed Rashid:
“everything was available—training, funding, communications and inspiration.”
It was in the mountain ranges of this sanctuary that al-Qaeda operated a formidable network of terrorist training camps, drilling and indoctrinating thousands of recruits. The terrorists who acquired their murderous skills in Afghanistan or who were organised from its soil dispersed across the world, inflicting bloodshed and tragedy on three continents. They detonated truck bombs in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, killing 224 people. They attacked the USS Cole in Aden in 2000, killing 17 people, and then they perpetrated their most heinous atrocity, claiming almost 3,000 lives in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington on 11 September 2001.
Today, thankfully, the situation is very different. The training camps have been destroyed. What remains of al-Qaeda’s leadership no longer resides in Afghanistan and no terrorist attacks against western targets have been mounted from Afghan soil since 2001. We should never lose sight of those essential facts.
On the morning after 11 September, few would have predicted that no more terrorist attacks on that scale would be launched from Afghanistan in the next 20 years. Those gains were achieved by an American-led military intervention mounted with overwhelming international support, including troops from dozens of countries, and the first and only invoking of NATO’s article 5 security guarantee. We can take pride that Britain was part of that effort from the beginning.
Over the past two decades, 150,000 members of our armed forces have served in Afghanistan, mainly in Helmand province, which was, from 2006 onwards, a focus of our operation. In the unforgiving desert of some of the world’s harshest terrain, and shoulder to shoulder with the Afghan security forces, our servicemen and women sought to bring development and stability. The House will join me in commending their achievements and paying heartfelt tribute to the 457 British service personnel who laid down their lives in Afghanistan to keep us safe.
We always acted in the closest partnership with the Government and the people of Afghanistan, and we owe an immense debt to the translators and other locally employed staff who risked their lives alongside British forces. We have already helped more than 1,500 former Afghan staff and their families to begin new lives here in the UK. This year, we adopted a new policy offering priority relocation to the UK to any current or former locally employed staff assessed to be under serious threat to their lives, together with their close families.
British diplomats and development experts worked alongside our allies to rebuild the country, opening schools and clinics where there had been none and bringing safe water and electricity to millions of people for the first time. No one who lives in comfort, as we do, should underestimate the importance of their advances.
In Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, virtually no girls attended school. They were, as a matter of declared policy, driven from the classroom and forbidden from returning. Today, 3.6 million girls are going to school in Afghanistan, seizing their chance to escape from illiteracy and poverty. The Girls’ Education Challenge fund, established by the British Government, has helped more than a quarter of a million Afghan girls into the classroom.
Our priority now must be to work alongside our Afghan and other partners to preserve those vital gains and the legacy of what has been achieved. Under the Taliban, women were excluded from governance. Today, women hold more than a quarter of the seats in Afghanistan’s Parliament. Since 2002, more than 5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan under the UN’s voluntary repatriation programme, aided by the fact that Britain, the UN and our Afghan and international partners have together cleared more than 8.4 million landmines or other unexploded munitions, restoring 340,000 acres of land for productive use. In 2018, Herat province was declared clear of mines after 10 years of painstaking work by the HALO Trust, based in Dumfriesshire, in a UK-funded programme.
No one should doubt the gains of the past 20 years, but nor can we shrink from the hard reality of the situation today. The international military presence in Afghanistan was never intended to be permanent. We and our NATO allies were always going to withdraw our forces. The only question was when, and there could never be a perfect moment. As long ago as 2014, the UK ceased all combat operations and brought the great majority of our troops home, reorienting our role and our involvement. About 750 service personnel stayed in Afghanistan under NATO’s mission to train and assist the country’s security forces. Last year, the US decided to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, while the Taliban undertook to prevent
“any group or individual, including al-Qaeda, from using the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies”.
President Biden announced in April that all American forces would leave by September at the latest, and the NATO summit declared last month that the alliance’s military operations in Afghanistan were “coming to an end”. As a result, all British troops assigned to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan are now returning home. For obvious reasons, I will not disclose the timetable of our departure, but I can tell the House that most of our personnel have already left.
I hope that no one will leap to the false conclusion that the withdrawal of our forces somehow means the end of Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan. We are not about to turn away, nor are we under any illusions about the perils of today’s situation and what may lie ahead. We always knew that supporting Afghanistan would be a generational undertaking, and we were equally clear that the instruments in our hands would change over time. Now we shall use every diplomatic and humanitarian lever to support Afghanistan’s development and stability. We will back the Afghan state with more than £100 million of development assistance this year and £58 million for the Afghan national security and defence forces.
We will of course continue to work alongside our Afghan partners against the terrorist threat. Our diplomats are doing everything they can to support a lasting peace settlement within Afghanistan, and they are working for regional stability, particularly by promoting better relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here I commend General Carter, the Chief of the Defence Staff, for his steadfast efforts.
I spoke to President Ghani on 17 June to assure him of the UK’s commitment, and I was moved once again to hear his tribute to the British soldiers who strove so hard to give the Afghan people better lives. We must be realistic about our ability alone to influence the course of events. It will take combined efforts of many nations, including Afghanistan’s neighbours, to help the Afghan people to build their future, but the threat that brought us to Afghanistan in the first place has been greatly diminished by the valour and by the sacrifice of the armed forces of Britain and many other countries. We are safer because of everything they did. Now, we must persevere alongside our friends for the same goal of a stable Afghanistan, but with different tools in our hands. I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. First, may I give my apologies on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who is on a long-planned visit to meet political leaders in Northern Ireland? May I also associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments regarding British service personnel and the collective efforts of our partners in NATO?
This is a profound moment for the more than 150,000 UK personnel who have served in Afghanistan during the past 20 years, including my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and many more Members across this House. My own brother served in the British armed forces during that period, too, so I know how it feels to say goodbye to a loved one before a tour of duty. Thankfully, I do not know how it feels not to see your loved one come home again, and the pain that those families have gone through is unimaginable. Hundreds of British men and women lost their lives in the service of our country. Many more were wounded or injured and still suffer the physical and emotional scars. They have shown extraordinary bravery, skill and courage so today, to everyone who served in Afghanistan and to all who loved them and supported them, we say a huge thank you.
There have been moments of huge difficulty in the past two decades, and the situation on the ground in Afghanistan today is more concerning than it has been at any point in many years. That must not take away from the many positives our engagement has brought to Afghanistan and the real difference our services and development sector have made in a country that has suffered so much. We have supported improvements in security, governance, economic development and, as the Prime Minister said, advancing the rights of women and education for girls. Yet these gains have not been secured; the Taliban are making gains on the ground, and serious questions remain about the future stability of Afghanistan.
A security threat remains to the wider world, including to the UK. Nobody wants to see British troops permanently stationed in Afghanistan, but we simply cannot wash our hands or walk away. It is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict and wider Taliban control. Already, they are on the brink of gaining control of provincial capitals, and Afghan security forces are at risk of being overwhelmed. This spells jeopardy for the Afghan people, particularly for Afghan women and girls—and for all the things the Prime Minister talked about earlier—who in a just world would have had the same rights as women everywhere deserve.
In the words of the Prime Minister, this is a situation fraught with risk, and I understand that. So can he tell us whether he argued for or against the withdrawal by the US Government and NATO, and what other steps he proposed? Our British troops made enormous sacrifices and we believe, as a nation, that we have a responsibility to our veterans. Can the Prime Minister really tell them that our work as a nation in Afghanistan is done and that their efforts will not be in vain? On their behalf, I ask the Prime Minister: what plans are now in place to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a failed state and a breeding ground for those who wish to oppress their own citizens and threaten ours? What additional threat does our country now face? What diplomatic plans will be in place in the region to support the peace process? Are the UK Government engaging with the Government of Pakistan about their role? Will the UK embassy in Kabul remain? How will we keep our UK staff there safe?
Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, yet our aid funding to that country is being cut by more than £100 million—the Prime Minister referred to this today. The UK funded a project involving 6,000 women that has already been cancelled. When he visited Kabul as the Foreign Secretary he said that girls’ education was our “crowning achievement”, so can he tell the House what impact his cuts to the aid budget will have on programmes there? Will he not rethink those cuts?
I reiterate that we all want to see an end to UK military operations in Afghanistan, but if we leave without putting a plan in place to ensure that Afghanistan does not go back to the conflict and violence of the past, we will have failed those who have given so much over the past 20 years. Building and maintaining the peace and prosperity of Afghanistan, protecting women and girls, and in turn protecting our own nation, should always be our priority. To honour the legacy of those who have served and the lives that were lost, let us make sure, Prime Minister, that we get this right.
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she said and particularly the spirit in which she said it, so let me try to address some of her points. It is clear that what is happening now is a follow-up to what was very largely the withdrawal—the end of military operations—in 2014. The presence since then has been much smaller, but a great deal of good work has continued to be done by British aid workers, the British armed forces and British diplomats.
The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the work of educating girls and young women. The whole country can be proud of what has been achieved. I reassure her by saying that this country will not only continue to fund education in Afghanistan and continue to support Afghanistan to the tune of £100 million, but we will also increase our funding for the Global Partnership for Education. We will be making further announcements about that later this month, when the Global Partnership for Education summit takes place here in London.
The right hon. Lady asks the most important question that I think veterans of the Afghan conflict will want to have answered, which is whether we think that the threat from Afghanistan has now been reduced. The answer is yes, we do think the threat from al-Qaeda is very substantially lower than it was in 2001. There remain threats from Islamic State Khorasan and the Haqqani network—of course there remain terrorist threats from Afghanistan—but the answer is to have a peaceful and a negotiated solution and that is what our diplomats will continue to work for.
I would just say to the Taliban that they have made the commitment that I read out to the House, in their negotiations with General Khalilzad. They must abide by that commitment. I am sure they will be aware that there is no military path to victory for the Taliban. There must be a peaceful and a negotiated settlement for the political crisis in Afghanistan, and the UK will continue to work to ensure that that takes place. I believe that can happen—I do not believe that the Taliban are guaranteed the kind of victory that we sometimes read about.
The UK will continue to exert all its diplomatic and political efforts to ensure that there is a better future for the people of Afghanistan, for the women of Afghanistan and for the young people growing up in Afghanistan, and to ensure that the legacy of the 150,000 British serving men and women who went through Afghanistan and, above all, the 457 who laid down their lives, is properly honoured.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I first say thank you to the Prime Minister for coming and giving this statement himself? This is an enormously personal issue for me. I did not meet the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) here or in any of the clubs or think-tanks around Westminster—I met him about 20 miles to the west of Garmsir in the desert, as we were fighting side by side against the enemies the Prime Minister has just listed. The achievements he listed were won with the blood of my friends. I can point him to the graves where they now lay.
That legacy is now in real doubt—we know that and we know that it is not just the Prime Minister’s decision and that the US decision to withdraw forces was fundamental here. But can he explain to me how Britain’s foreign policy works in a country like Afghanistan? If persistence is not persistent, if endurance does not endure, how can people trust us as an ally? How can people look at us as a friend?
The situation reminds me not of Vietnam, but of Germany in 1950, at a time when we could have walked away. We could have said, “It is too expensive; it is too difficult to rebuild. Let’s let Stalin have it and see what happens.” But we did not. We stayed and, in doing so, we liberated the whole of Europe peacefully.
Now I understand that it is hard to do that and I understand it demands a lot. The integrated review set out a really impressive strategy and it was not just summarised with the three words, “God bless America”.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the whole House will want to thank my hon. Friend for his service in Afghanistan and for all the good that he did with his fellow serving men and women in Afghanistan, but as I think he conceded in his question, what the UK has been able to do in Afghanistan has not been possible through our efforts alone. We have to work with others, and of course the United States plays a massive role in these considerations.
I wish to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we are not walking away; I made that point absolutely clear to President Ghani on 17 June. I say to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—I should have answered this point—that we are keeping our embassy in Kabul. We will continue to work with our friends and allies, and particularly with the Government of Pakistan, to try to bring a settlement and to try to ensure that the Taliban understand that there can be no military path to victory. There must be a negotiated solution. That is what the British Government will continue to do, and that is very largely what we have been doing since 2014.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). We should listen very carefully to what he had to say on behalf of himself, other Members of this House who have served in Afghanistan, and indeed those all through these islands who went to that country—those who sadly lost their lives, those who were injured in the conflict and the many who were maimed for the rest of their life.
Let me thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House and for advance sight of his statement. It is an important statement and, of course, it is largely about national security. Let me state that I think that there is an obligation on all of us on the Opposition Benches to work constructively and to be a critical support to what we are seeking to achieve. In that spirit, I commend the Prime Minister and his office for agreeing to Privy Council meetings for the Leader of the Opposition and for us, because it is important that we are as informed as we should be in order that we can play our role in scrutinising the Government but supporting them where appropriate.
While there would have been no question of the UK realistically maintaining a presence unilaterally in Afghanistan, there is no point in pretending that the vacuum created by the accelerated withdrawal of US and allied forces has done anything but create instability. We know that the departure of the remaining western forces from Afghanistan has emboldened Taliban insurgents. In recent days, the Taliban have seized several districts, and they have made it clear that they expect any western forces left behind—even those guarding Kabul airport or embassies—to be a violation of the Doha deal.
It is the stability of the country and the humanitarian interests of Afghanis that should be foremost in the mind of the leaders who have had operations in that country. A situation in which violent extremism and fundamentalism return to the heart of political life in Afghanistan would be dire for Afghanis, as well as for our allies in the region and beyond.
In the past hours, we have seen the fightback intensify, both from Afghani Government troops and from civilians. In a stark reminder of what is at stake, thousands of women have protested in the streets for the freedoms that they know the Taliban will deny them. All they want is what we want: a more open Afghanistan that is a better place for women for its future, instead of going back to the senseless cruelty of the past. For those reasons, it is utterly inexplicable that we have cut aid spending in this country. That hinders any progress in rooting out extremism and abuses against women or in protecting human rights.
May I ask the Prime Minister what general assessment has been made as to any potential security implications of the developments in Afghanistan? What are the implications of any threats from al-Qaeda and Islamic State? What measures will be taken by the UK Government to protect the UK’s diplomatic presence in Kabul?
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to pay respects on behalf of my party to the families of the 457 British troops whose lives were lost in Afghanistan. I am sure that many of them will be following the proceedings in this House and the actions taken by the Government. They will be asking questions to make sure that there is a lasting legacy to the sacrifices that were made by so many.
The Prime Minister
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit and the content of his remarks. On the substance of his questions to me, our assessment is that the threat from Afghanistan to this country has very substantially diminished as a result of the actions by the UK and our friends over the last 20 years, although clearly a threat remains, and the extent of that threat will now depend on exactly what happens. To come to his points about the Taliban, their intentions and the progress that they are making, I think it is true that the Taliban are making rapid progress in rural areas, but that does not mean that they are guaranteed a victory in the whole of Afghanistan or across the urban areas of Afghanistan, where, as he points out, there is lively resistance to what they have to offer and their view of the way things should be. That is why this Government, through all our agencies—diplomatic, political, development and otherwise—will continue to work for a negotiated settlement, particularly with regional actors such as Pakistan. I believe that is the best way forward for Afghanistan. There must be a settlement and it will have to—I think we must be realistic about this—include the Taliban.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) [V]
Decisions do not come any bigger for a Prime Minister than to send our armed forces to war, but when an overseas operation lasts two decades, costs hundreds of British lives, billions of pounds to the taxpayer and ends in retreat, it would be a dereliction of duty not to ask what went so wrong. We now abandon the country to the fate of the very insurgent organisation we went in to defeat in the first place. I say to the Prime Minister that, if we do not learn the lessons of failing to appreciate Afghan history, the folly of imposing western solutions, the delays in training Afghan security forces and denying the Taliban a place at the table back in December 2001, we are likely to repeat similar mistakes. I ask the Prime Minister: please conduct a formal inquiry.
The Prime Minister
I must caution my right hon. Friend that I do not think that is the right way forward at this stage. He calls this a retreat. This was never intended, at any stage, to be an open-ended commitment or engagement by UK armed services in Afghanistan. There was no intention for us to remain there forever. As the House knows, Operation Herrick concluded in 2014. At that stage, the Army conducted a thorough internal review of the lessons that needed to be learned. Those were incorporated into the integrated review of our security and defence strategy that was published earlier this year. Given the length of such inquiries—I think the Chilcot inquiry went on for seven years and cost many millions of pounds—I do not think that this is necessary at this stage. I think that the Government should rather focus our efforts on ensuring that we do everything we can to secure the prosperity, the peace and the stability of the people of Afghanistan and that is what we will do.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
Can I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the role our armed forces have played in Afghanistan, and especially remember the 450 men and women who laid down their lives and the many more who sustained lifelong injuries? We are grateful to them, and remember them and their families.
The Prime Minister rightly says that our country retains a responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, so with Afghan soldiers trained by allied forces surrendering all too frequently, with some analysts predicting that the Taliban are probably only months away from taking Kabul, with a new era of injustice, inequality and brutality facing the women and girls of Afghanistan, and with the potential for a new vector of international terrorism forming across Afghanistan, can the Prime Minister explain with far more substance how the British Government plan to work with our international partners to fulfil the responsibility he accepts we still have to the Afghan people?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We are going to continue to support the Afghan national security and defence forces, as I pledged to President Ghani, with at least another £58 million. We are working with the regional actors, particularly Pakistan. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Pakistan security services have a very considerable influence in Afghanistan. We are working with the Pakistani Government and with the Taliban to ensure that there is progress towards a negotiated solution. As I am sure he knows, in Kabul, there are many actors and there is a very fractured political scene. The UK Government know all those actors well. It is essential that they work together for a negotiated settlement and for the long-term future of Afghanistan, and that is what we will do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House to make this statement. I agree that we clearly owe a debt of honour to the members of our armed forces, many of whom have lost their lives or been badly maimed, who have done their country proud in what they have delivered: education for women; clinics and healthcare; and freedoms that were not there before under the Taliban. He said in his statement, however:
“I hope that no one will leap to the false conclusion that the withdrawal of our forces somehow means the end of Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan”.
So I have a very simple question for him: how far does that commitment extend? If the Taliban take over and take away the women’s rights to education, do we intervene? If they take away the rights and freedoms that we gave them, do we intervene? If they end up killing and maiming more people in Afghanistan and allowing terrorist organisations in, do we intervene? As one veteran said to me literally 48 hours ago, this begins to look a little bit like the last days of Vietnam, an unprecedented and hurried exit with no commitment. Are we committed?
The Prime Minister
Yes, as I said in my answers to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and other Members who have effectively asked the same question, the circumstances in 2001 when this country went into Afghanistan were quite exceptional. NATO’s article 5 of mutual appeal for defence was invoked by our American friends. That is why we went in and it was a quite exceptional moment.
Since then, in the last 20 years, we have achieved a very great deal—an increase in life expectancy in Afghanistan, from 56 to 64 years, and the education of women, as has been mentioned—and we will continue through development assistance and by other means to do whatever we can for the long-term future of Afghanistan. But, as my right hon. Friend knows, the fundamental military decision to cease Operation Herrick was the turning point. What we are going to do now is use our best endeavours, our best efforts, all our political engagement, to produce a negotiated settlement and to produce a stable future for Afghanistan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
This has to be a day of reflection. We have spent billions of pounds in the war in Afghanistan, 450 British troops have lost their lives, thousands of Americans and other troops have lost their lives, many, many thousands of Afghan people have lost their lives and many more have been forced to be refugees in exile all around the region as well as in western Europe. Surely we need to think about this very carefully. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister appeared to reject calls for an inquiry at the Liaison Committee yesterday and appeared to reject the request for an inquiry made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) today. May I ask him to think again about that? Surely we need an inquiry into how such a decision came around to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and now the withdrawal from Afghanistan and of course the chaos that is being left behind.
The Prime Minister will have noted that some talks are going on, which have been cautiously welcomed by the United States, in Tehran between the Afghan Government and the Taliban. He will also have noted that there are large numbers of Afghan refugees now in Tajikistan as well as in Pakistan.
What efforts will the Prime Minister be making to try to ensure that there is not a descent into civil war but some kind of diplomatic initiative at least to bring about security for the people of Afghanistan, and obviously that includes the entire population, particularly those children who have suffered so much and those women who have been so grievously discriminated against in that country?
While Britain is withdrawing, surely we need to recognise that when we make hasty foreign policy decisions to go to war, the consequences go on for a very long time. In this case, it is now the 20th anniversary of such a decision.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am of course aware of what is happening in Tehran and the contacts that are taking place, and the role of the UK Government is to promote dialogue. I have said what I have said about the Taliban and the reality of the situation that Afghanistan finds itself in. I do not think that the Taliban are capable of victory by military means, a point I have made several times. The UK will work, principally through our friends in Pakistan but also with other actors on the ground in Kabul, to try to bring about a settlement that works for Afghanistan.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about an inquiry, I repeat what I have said to several colleagues. I do not think that another Chilcot-style inquiry is called for at this stage, particularly given that the fundamental decision to end Op Herrick was taken in 2014, which is now a long time ago. What I think the House can always consider is whether the Defence Committee, for instance, wishes to investigate it themselves.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Having been in Afghanistan many times, I add my very sincere tribute to our armed forces, the civilian support, the non-governmental organisations and all those who risked, and sometimes sacrificed, life and limb to give the people of Afghanistan a better future. What discussions has he had with our international partners, particularly the United States, on how we will monitor and react if the hard-won gains that we made, including on the rights of women, roll backwards under the brutal, mediaeval influence of the Taliban, and perhaps even—God forbid—the re-emergence of a terrorist threat?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about Afghanistan and the problems it faces. Of course, we have raised repeatedly with our American friends and other NATO colleagues the legacy that we wish to preserve in Afghanistan, particularly the gains made for women, and they understand that. In all candour, I must be honest and say that I do not think that the military options open to us are very great, and I think that people need to recognise that, to return to the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). But we will do whatever we can diplomatically and politically to get a realistic lasting solution for Afghanistan.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that he was apprehensive about the future of Afghanistan and that the situation was fraught with risks—a sentiment shared by many Afghans, who fear that the gains of which he has spoken so eloquently today, such as girls’ education and democracy, may be lost. After two decades and the sacrifice of so many British lives, whose loss we mourn today and always, why is he so confident that the Taliban will never again allow any part of Afghanistan—because they control some parts already—to be used by terrorist forces, including ISIS, as a base from which to attack this country and others of our allies?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously, the Taliban have for several years now controlled a considerable part of Afghanistan, as he knows, and it is during that period that we have not seen terrorist operations launched against the wider world. What may weigh on the Taliban’s minds as they think about whether to allow the Khorasan province group, the Haqqani network or al-Qaeda to return and re-form in the way that they were there in the past, and to act outside Afghanistan, is that they should remember what happened last time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It sounds from that as if the Prime Minister is saying that if those groups go down that route again, there could be another military intervention. Does he accept that a fanatical brand of Islamist terrorism, sheltered and supported by the Taliban extremists, has not only attacked the west before but is highly likely to do so again? He mentioned that the military operations route is not great, but rather than veering from occupation to evacuation and back again in a few years’ time, will he now commission a study of an alternative containment strategy involving selective strikes with allies from strategic bases, to prevent a total terrorist takeover of Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Afghanistan was never occupied, and nor is this an evacuation. What we will certainly look at—I think this is the point he was getting at—in addition to working with our friends and partners in the region is to what extent counter-terrorist activity can be conducted from outside Afghanistan on an outside-in basis.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister very much for coming and making this difficult and important statement to the House today. I thank him also for what he said about the contribution that has been made by the girls’ education challenge fund, which we set up in 2010 and which has been responsible for the education of millions of girls in Afghanistan. It seems to me that his statement eloquently makes clear the limits of hard power and the importance of soft power. I take it that that was one of the things he was referring to at the end of his statement when he spoke about the different tools for the future. It is soft power that will now help the Afghan state to survive and hopefully deliver for its people, so I hope he will not think it unreasonable of me to ask him to look again at the recent extraordinary decision to cut our development spending in Afghanistan by £200 million.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. I know that this is a subject that he has returned to many times in this House, and I understand how deeply he feels about it and how much he understands it. It is still the case that we were the third biggest bilateral donor to Afghanistan last year. We are committing a further £100 million per year to the people of Afghanistan, plus the military and logistical support for the Afghan national security and defence forces. I think most people in this country understand that, after giving £3.2 billion in development assistance to Afghanistan over the past 10 years, we are in tough financial times here in the UK, and that it remains a remarkable thing and a matter of pride that the UK is able to continue to support the people of Afghanistan in the way that we are.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for recognising the amazing work that aid workers have done to date in Afghanistan. I would like to quote from the Government’s own development tracker website, which today states:
“Almost 40 years of conflict has left Afghanistan one of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world. Creating a more stable environment will help reduce poverty and make progress towards the Global Goals. It will also reduce threats to the UK from violence and extremism, and discourage illegal migration.”
Our funding for aid to Afghanistan has fallen dramatically. In 2019-20, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office spent £244 million and the conflict, stability and security fund spent an additional £48 million. Last year, we spent over £170 million, and this year £100 million has been committed. At the very moment that we are withdrawing troops, therefore, we are also cutting the aid that helps maintain stability in the country. How does this keep us safe or, indeed, build on the investment we have already made through our development work?
The Prime Minister
This country remains, as I have just told the House, one of the biggest bilateral donors of aid to Afghanistan in the world. The people of this country should take great pride in that. A statistic I did not mention earlier, to get back to the hon. Lady’s earlier point, is that, partly thanks to the work of UK aid and the whole NATO mission, mortality for women and children in Afghanistan has fallen faster than in any other low-income country.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
First, I pay tribute to and thank all those who served in Afghanistan so professionally and courageously. May I press my right hon. Friend on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) by asking him how we, the UK and our allies, can now physically stop Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for international terrorism? Let us not be naïve: the Taliban are back and all the horrors associated with them.
The Prime Minister
A couple of quick points. It is important for my hon. Friends not to exaggerate our ability, by military might alone, to stop parts of Afghanistan already being used for terrorist purposes if that were what the Taliban desired to do, given that they already possess substantial portions of that country. It is also the case that there are many other parts of the world that can be used as a base for international terrorism. What we propose to do is continue to work with our friends to look at an outside-in approach to counterterrorism, and to work with regional actors to ensure we have a solution in Kabul that prevents that country lurching back into becoming a haven for terrorism in the way that he describes. As I have told the House, I do not think that that will necessarily be easy, but it is by no means impossible and the hope is certainly there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber to make a statement. He noted the importance of the Afghanistan nation, with which we have worked so hard together to create real change. In 2012, I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan on behalf of my party. At that time, I was able to meet some of the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment. Some who served were my constituents. Some gave their lives and some were injured as a result—the sacrifice of many of our brave service personnel in lives lost and injuries. I have a photograph in my office taken at that time of Afghan national army recruits at their training college. I was very impressed by their courage and bravery. There is a real fear that Afghanistan will feel our loss too deeply. What discussions have taken place with the USA and other interested allies to ensure that there are enough munitions, physical support, help, advice and guidance required for the future of our friends, all citizens and allies in Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman and join him in paying tribute to the sacrifice of all serving men and women of the Irish Guards, the Royal Irish Regiment, as well as all those who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan, and everything they did to protect the people of that country. As he knows, the UK helped to train about 5,500 officers in the Afghan security and defence forces. We will continue to invest in them, with £58 million a year in the way that I described. We will, of course, be doing that in concert with our American friends and allies.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
Three years ago I had the privilege of visiting Afghanistan and seeing the Welsh Guards in action. It is fair to say that the threats they faced and the risks they overcame were simply humbling. Their efforts helped many who otherwise would not have done so to receive an education, and the makings of a civic society were brought together. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to them? Does he agree that the best way to do that is to continue our diplomatic and political focus, as well as continuing to use our generous overseas aid budget in seeking to pay a significant legacy in that part of the world?
The Prime Minister
I share completely the feelings of my right hon. Friend and join him in thanking the men and women of the Welsh Guards and all other armed forces who did so much in so many ways in terms of sanitation, electricity and generally improving the life chances of the people of Afghanistan. We will do whatever we can from now on—diplomatically, politically and with our development budgets—to make sure that we protect the legacy of their achievement.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Now, with over a quarter of a million civilian lives lost, 457 British soldiers dead on Afghanistan’s plains, and thousands more at home maimed in body and mind, will the Prime Minister, unlike some of his predecessors, please give me his frank assessment: is the terrorist threat really eliminated, will the Taliban not just reverse the progressive gains of the past 20 years, and were those lives lost and ruined in vain?
The Prime Minister
No, I absolutely do not believe that the sacrifice of British troops over the past 20 years has been in vain. I believe that they are leaving a lasting legacy in Afghanistan. In 20 years, they have helped substantially to reduce the threat of terrorism. As I have told the House candidly, of course that threat has not gone away. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the Taliban stick to their promises—stick to what they have said—but we must also work to ensure that there is a settlement in Afghanistan that is propitious to a new approach and a new settlement for its people, so that there is not the temptation to use that country as a harbour for terrorist operations.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
Given the high likelihood that China will now exploit the opportunity presented by the US departure by extending the belt and road initiative, buying off the Taliban and muting their opposition to abuses in Xinjiang, what approach will my right hon. Friend take, with our allies, to the resulting greatly strengthened Beijing-Tehran axis, with all its grisly potential impact on security, prosperity and human rights?
The Prime Minister
The Chinese are not as yet a very major player in Afghanistan, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is vital that the people of Afghanistan should determine their own future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The armed forces covenant states:
“Those injured in Service, whether physically or mentally, should be cared for in a way which reflects the Nation’s moral obligation to them”.
In the north-east we are proud of and grateful to our servicemen and women, but local charities such as Anxious Minds and Forward Assist tell me that mental health support is wholly inadequate. How does the Prime Minister propose to support the mental wellbeing of those returning from service in Afghanistan? Why do his Government not even collect data on how many veterans have committed suicide or experienced post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental problems?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the problems that veterans of conflicts have experienced, particularly the health and mental health problems. Last year we put another £16 million into veterans’ health—mental health, in particular—and this year the number has gone up to £17 million. We also want to make sure that we are clear with people signing up for our armed forces that we will respect their service throughout their lives. That is why we instituted the railcard for veterans and the national insurance holiday for employers who take on veterans, we prioritise veterans for social housing, we have set up lotteries for veterans, and we have a Minister for veterans in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the armed forces who have served in Afghanistan. On behalf of my constituents in Wealden, I also pay respect to the 457 lives lost.
I know that the Prime Minister is very dedicated to supporting women and girls. I was in Afghanistan post 9/11, and women and girls are telling me now that under the Taliban, regardless of any peace settlement, they are lambs to the slaughter—schools and clinics will be closed. I believe that President Biden is due to make an announcement and provide safe passage to 2,000 vulnerable women, but with those women leaving I would argue that that will leave a further vacuum of women who are able to carry out education and any medical treatment, which will mean more female lives lost in Afghanistan. What support are we going to give the embassy when the Taliban arrive in Kabul? With the growth of the Taliban and, in their wings, Daesh, there will also be an export of violent extremism, so what strategies are in place to protect our children here who may be brainwashed by violent extremism?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her service in Afghanistan for the BBC World Service. I know that she knows and cares deeply about that that country. We will of course work with the Americans and all our NATO allies to achieve the objectives that she sets out, particularly protecting this country against terrorist threats, but also making sure that any settlement that we are able to encourage protects the rights and freedoms of women that have been won partly through the efforts and sacrifice of the British armed services.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and join him in thanking all those who have served in Afghanistan and those who have lost their lives.
The Prime Minister was very clear that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan does not mean that we are not committed to the future of Afghanistan, but, like the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I just want to be clear about what that commitment is. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate a settlement. I agree with him; everyone does—but over the next few days and months, Afghan security forces are going to come under attack, so will they get access to the logistic, intelligence and air support that they are going to need? I accept that that will not just be delivered by the United Kingdom—it will be a coalition agreement—but we need to have some clarity on that, if we are not going to see the collapse of some of those forces very quickly.
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands the situation very well. It is not open, I do not think, to the Taliban to enforce a military solution, but neither is it open to us—to NATO—to have a military solution. I am sure that he will accept that. What we want is a negotiated settlement; I think that is in the best interests of all parties.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been given a hard time today and I have a lot of sympathy for him because, given that we have to follow in the wake of the Americans, we have very few cards to play. I give him credit for coming here and taking it on the chin, but this is a catastrophic defeat for the west. It is a very sad day for tens of thousands of British personnel whose life’s work may now lie in ruins, and an abandonment of all our friends in Afghanistan. Let us be honest, the Taliban will probably take over large tracts of the country and the rest may be taken over by a warlord, so it is a desperate situation.
Given that we have spent all this money on overseas aid—more than £825 million, I think, in the last four years—and given that we know from our Syrian experience that there is no point in dispensing aid in a completely war-torn country, as it just leads to corruption and disaster, is the Prime Minister prepared to work with our NATO allies to ensure not only that our embassy is protected, but that aid workers are protected and that there is some minimum military force? Otherwise, there is no point in disbursing this aid to Afghanistan; it will just go up in flames.
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever we can to ensure that we protect our diplomatic and development assistance, obviously, but I just do not accept the characterisation that my right hon. Friend has given of what is happening today. After all, the main strategic decision to end Op Herrick took place in 2014. I believe, actually, that the legacy of UK involvement in Afghanistan is a proud one and will be a lasting one: millions of children educated who would not otherwise have been educated; millions of girls in school who would not otherwise have been in school; the reduction in the terrorist threat for that country for decades; and still the chance, I think, of a political, negotiated settlement involving the Taliban, which is really the only realistic prospect for that country.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is right today that we remember the sacrifices of our troops in Afghanistan. In his statement, the Prime Minister said that 3.6 million girls are now going to school in Afghanistan and that the Girls’ Education Challenge fund has helped more than a quarter of a million Afghan girls into the classroom. He said that our priority must be to work alongside our Afghan and other partners to preserve what has already been achieved. In response to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), he said that there would be an increase in funding for the Global Partnership for Education this year. Will he therefore tell us whether that increase will cover the more than 25% reduction for education for girls in Afghanistan that has already taken place on his watch?
The Prime Minister
I cannot give the hon. Lady the answer to exactly how the increment in the Global Partnership for Education funding will be dispensed around the world, but clearly Afghanistan is a very important recipient country. It is where we can achieve a huge amount and have already achieved a huge amount. We are committing a further £100 million, and we remain the third biggest bilateral donor. Those are facts of which people in this country should be very proud.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
When Tony Blair shamefully led my party into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, dutifully following Washington, he was fully backed by the Tories, but dissenting voices in this place and millions on the street foresaw the disasters that the wars would unleash. Twenty years on, it is clear that the dissenting voices were right and the British establishment was wrong. The wars took the lives of 50,000 Afghan civilians, more than 1 million Iraqis and 636 British soldiers. They destabilised a whole region, undermined democracy at home and made us all unsafe, and now the Taliban are set to regain power in Afghanistan. Does the Prime Minister agree that those catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show the need for a new foreign policy—one that is based on restraint and diplomacy, not military aggression?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, the circumstances in Afghanistan in 2001 demanded action. It was clear that the US had been under attack and article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked. I believe it was right to take action against that brutal and ruthless terrorist cell that was incubated in Afghanistan. The hon. Lady advocates democracy, but the Taliban had no democracy then and nor did they educate girls in school. If she refuses to see what the soldiers, the men and women of this country, the diplomats and the development officers have done in helping young girls and women in Afghan—if she refuses to see their achievement—I really think she is blind to the facts.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Didcot in my constituency is the proud home of the 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Search Regiment, which played a vital role in our operations in Afghanistan, and sadly lost members along the way. I have other constituents who also lost loved ones during the conflict, so this is doubtless a difficult time for all of them. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of my constituents and others in our operations in Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
I do; I pay tribute to their bravery and sacrifice. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), I have been to that cemetery in Kabul, as I am sure many colleagues in this House have, and I have seen the memorials to British soldiers going back decades—the more than 100 years that this country has been involved in trying to bring stability to Afghanistan. I thank the regiment based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) for what they have done, and I simply want to repeat the burden of my point to the House today: I do not believe that their efforts and sacrifice have been in vain.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
The Hazara community in Afghanistan is an extremely vulnerable religious minority, millions of whom already live in constant fear and jeopardy as victims of targeted attacks. Only last month, the Hazara girls school in Kabul was bombed. What are the Government doing to ensure that the Hazaras are provided with adequate protection now that international troops are leaving Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has. He will understand the limits of what we can do by way of practical direct military action, but that has been the case, as he knows, for several years now. What we can try to do is ensure that there is a settlement in Kabul that protects the rights of all minorities, including the religious minorities that he describes.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I join the Prime Minister and others in paying tribute to our armed forces who have served in Afghanistan.
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the primary source of income for the Afghan farmers is the poppy crop. Our allies in the United States took the view of torching the poppy crop because it supplies the illegal drugs trade. Will my right hon. Friend consider that we should instead purchase the poppy crop and use it for beneficial pharmaceutical purposes, rather than allowing it to continue to supply the illegal drugs trade?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his imaginative suggestion; it is one that I actually considered many years ago and researched quite deeply. Unfortunately, the reality is that we would not achieve the result that he suggests. All that would happen is that the farmers in Afghanistan—the Taliban-controlled farmers in particular —would grow not only legal opium for medicinal use but illegal crops, so we would simply have a double market.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker; greetings from the far north of Scotland.
The Prime Minister has referred to diplomatic and political efforts and to different tools, and, to my delight, he has just referred to the BBC World Service. Does he agree that the BBC World Service is a national treasure and one of the strongest arms of soft power that this country can wield, and that it should be enhanced and used to maximum effect to give succour to our friends in Afghanistan and all over the world?
The Prime Minister
I associate myself completely with the hon. Gentleman’s views. I can tell him that that is why we are providing, through the FCDO, almost £95 million more to the BBC World Service this year.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I place on the record the same thanks as others have for the service and sacrifice of our armed forces who have served in Afghanistan.
As my right hon. Friend said in his statement, we owe the translators and locally employed staff in Afghanistan an enormous debt of gratitude for all the work that they have done in supporting UK armed forces personnel. Does he agree that it is right that we repay those people and help them to begin new lives here, in recognition of everything that they have done in support of our country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, and I know that his views are echoed in every corner of this House. We owe those people a huge debt for their bravery, their sacrifice and the risks they have run not just to their own lives, but to the lives of their families. That is why the Afghan relocations and assistance policy addresses those risks and I am proud that, already, 1,500 have been allowed to come safely to this country. I thank everybody involved for the speed and efficiency with which they have been handling those cases.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
Point of Order
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rules of this House are very clear that any hon. Member visiting another Member’s constituency in any official capacity should inform that Member. Indeed, the ministerial code is very clear that Ministers making any official visits to someone’s constituency should inform them in time and in advance. This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has visited the New Covent Garden flower market in my Battersea constituency and, disappointingly, his office has not informed me, so I seek your guidance as to how we can ensure that Ministers follow the rules like the rest of us.
Furthermore, I wrote to the Chancellor in May about the problems and the support for traders at the flower market, and I am yet to receive a response despite several attempts to chase his office. I seek your advice on how we can ensure the Chancellor responds to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this point of order. I assume that she has told the Chancellor that she is raising this in the House. She is quite correct; the document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with the issue that she has raised. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, expect on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. That guidance also states that
“failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”
She also refers to the ministerial code and, again, she is correct that paragraph 10.10 states:
“Ministers intending to make an official visit within the United Kingdom must inform in advance, and in good time, the MPs whose constituencies are to be included within the itinerary.”
The hon. Lady has made clear her concern. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that and will feed back the points that she has raised.
I suspend the House for three minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Licences and Licensing
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise for the hoarseness of my voice, but this is what happens when you shout at a television for however long it was. It seemed like an eternity, but it was well worth a shout. I shall be doing exactly the same on Sunday.
I call Victoria Atkins to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move,
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (2020 UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.
It is somehow fitting that you are in the Chair for this particular statutory instrument, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I suspect it may be the most popular statutory instrument of my entire career. It will enable pubs, restaurants and hostelries around the country to roll out the barrel and welcome in fans, friends and families to cheer on our great team. These regulations enable them to stay open until 11.15 pm on Sunday. We have tried to give enough time for extra time, to ensure that fans can celebrate wholeheartedly.
The technical description in the Licensing Act 2003 is that we can extend hours for occasions that have
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
I believe all three of those boxes are ticked. Just to give an indication of how much that might mean for our publicans across the country, the British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that 50,000 pints were sold each minute last night, which on my very quick reckoning means an extra two and a quarter million pints in the 45 minutes that we are going to be introducing. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker has just said that most of that was him—I wanted to make sure I got that in Hansard.
In conclusion, will you allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to mangle the words of our greatest wordsmith, William Shakespeare, in “Henry V”? The game’s afoot: Follow your spirit; and upon this charge, Cry, “God for Harry, England and Saint Gareth!”—I mean Saint George.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I don’t think we are going to expect a Division on this, are we? I think this will be the most popular motion the Minister has ever moved.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. I apologise to you and her for not being in the Chamber in person, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I came to St Helens last night to watch the game with my kids. As rare as English football success is, sadly the failure of the west coast main line is all too frequent for us in the north-west, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I was unable to be there.
It strikes me as something approaching cruel and unusual punishment to ask an Irishman to support opening pubs for longer hours, but only on the basis that England are in the final and could win the Euros. Of course I and the Labour party are delighted to give our wholehearted support not just to the order, but to Gareth Southgate, Harry Kane and the entire squad. If I might be allowed to abuse my position on the Front Bench, I particularly want to say how proud I am that Conor Coady from Haydock in my constituency is in the squad. I know that his family and the whole local community are right behind him.
I do not intend to detain the House or strike any discordant note, but I would just like to ask the Minister a few questions. Will she ensure that local licensing teams, alongside the police and businesses themselves, have all the information and support they require to prepare for Sunday? Will she also ensure consistency in the Government’s messaging in relation to coronavirus regulations and the need for us all to continue to meet our obligations to each other and be responsible, while of course also enjoying the fun we have missed so much over the past 16 or 17 months?
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to pubs, clubs, bars and the wider hospitality sector for their heroic efforts of late? Is it not great to see them back at the heart of our communities, being the place where we share, together with friends and neighbours, the ups and downs of life, love and the world? Will she also do us a favour and ask her colleagues who have been boycotting the England games to stick steadfastly to their principles and ensure that they do not jinx the team on Sunday by switching from the reruns of “Murder, She Wrote” on ITV4 to the biggest game that the country has seen in 55 years?
I want to say something serious about England and this team, because what has happened over the past few weeks goes way beyond football. Since I came here almost 20 years ago, this country has been very, very good to me; I have made my life here and I have been given incredible opportunities. I think that these young men and their manager are the best of England and everything I have experienced. In fact, they are the best of life itself. They are inspiring all generations, through not only their skill and success, but their values and example. We salute them and we wish them well. In conclusion, it is a pleasure to support this legislation, which means that for millions of people watching the game in pubs across the country on Sunday, when football comes home, they will have a little more time to celebrate before they have to.
Victoria Atkins
It gives me great pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he is not here in person, but he has been causing those on the Government Benches chuckle away at his many comments. First, I am happy to confirm that the police, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Local Government Association and the British Beer and Pub Association have been working, alongside UKHospitality, to develop guidance for licensees screening the tournament, very much to help venues make sure that we all end up having a great time on Sunday and celebrating, we hope, together in a safe way. On his other comments, I am going to leave it to his imagination as to whether or not I agree with him on certain points, but I would say that as a mum of a very excited nine-year-old last night I know that mums and dads across the country will be trying to contain young children, as well as perhaps those of an older age, on Sunday night to ensure that we all have a great time. The team were a superb example of sportsmanship and talent last night. They are an absolute credit to our country and we will all be willing them on, whether we are in the pub or not, on Sunday night.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Rather similar to Conor McGinn, this proud Welshman was wearing an England T-shirt last night, cheering on Harry and the team, and consuming some of the beer. As honorary president of the all-party group on beer, I declare an interest there. This proud Welshman will also be at Wembley on Sunday, with my England T-shirt, cheering them on to victory.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We will suspend very briefly, just for the sanitisation of the Government Dispatch Box.
Fuel Poverty
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
I am pleased to be able to open this debate, which is an annual opportunity for Members to raise their constituents’ views on the important question of fuel poverty. The past year has been a challenge for everyone, yet the impacts of the pandemic have not been felt equally. In particular, it has had a devastating impact on those already on a low income. The issues being faced by those in fuel poverty are not unique to the pandemic. The health implications of living in a cold home remain as serious as ever. Work is ongoing to address the issue and support those who are most vulnerable.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I appreciate the Minister giving way so early. She is illustrating the impact of covid and people in fuel poverty. Does that not underline the need to retain the £20-a-week universal credit uplift?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I will continue, if I may, and I hope I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Government-led energy-efficiency upgrades over the last decade have reduced the cost of heating homes, building resilience for all households, especially those on low incomes. I will come on to the energy-efficiency schemes that have kept households warm over the past year and the further action we are planning to take to accelerate progress towards tackling fuel poverty.
I would just like to acknowledge the importance of the strong relationships built with energy suppliers, which have been crucial during the pandemic. I thank them and their staff for their total commitment to looking after customers, despite risks to themselves. These relationships enabled us to quickly secure a voluntary agreement to support customers impacted by covid-19, which has been hugely successful in protecting those most vulnerable or at risk of debt, and came top of the Citizens Advice ranking of protection measures by industry. There is no doubt that more immediate support for those struggling to pay their energy bills and ensuring fairness within the energy market is important and I will come back to that later.
It is important to note that fuel poverty is devolved and that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has a responsibility for England. Each nation remains committed to tackling the issue and I welcome contributions from all hon. Members today as they raise their own nation’s issues.
In February this year, we published an updated fuel poverty strategy, “Sustainable Warmth: Protecting Vulnerable Households in England.” The strategy details our focus on energy efficiency, which enables warmer homes at lower cost, while also reducing carbon emissions in line with net zero. Our strategy reiterates the 2030 fuel poverty target in England, which is to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes—indeed, all homes—as is reasonably practical achieve a minimum energy-efficiency rating of band C by 2030.
A great deal has been achieved in the last decade, but there remain a significant number of households in need of support on our journey to the 2030 target. As of 2019, there are 3.18 million households in fuel poverty in England. That is a reduction of 1.6 million households since 2010. The main reason for the reduction in fuel-poor households over the last 10 years has been energy-efficiency improvements—improvements that are of benefit for many years to come.
Cold homes will often have issues with mould and damp. By installing energy-efficient measures, we are improving the comfort of our constituents’ daily lives. They are crucial in protecting and improving people’s health and helping to reduce the burden on the NHS, as well as reducing energy use and thereby reducing bills. We are focusing on improving the least energy-efficient homes first, to ensure some of those in the homes that are the most difficult and expensive to heat are prioritised. There has been significant progress.
Compared with 2010, there are now 1.3 million fewer low-income households living in the least energy-efficient homes—that is bands E, F or G. Our sustainable warmth strategy details the energy-efficiency schemes currently in place.
The green home grant local authority delivery scheme will deliver £500 million of energy-efficiency and low-carbon heating measures across the owner-occupied, private and social rented sectors. The home upgrade grant will support low-income households, with upgrades to the worst performing off-gas grid homes in England, providing energy-efficiency improvements and low-carbon heating alternatives.
In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, we committed to a £3.8 billion social housing decarbonisation fund over a 10-year period to improve the energy performance of socially rented homes. We have committed to a four-year, £4 billion successor scheme to the energy company obligation—the ECO, as it is known—across Great Britain. That will accelerate our efforts to improve homes to meet fuel poverty targets.
While these energy-efficiency schemes are crucial in reducing fuel poverty in the long term, we also recognise the need for short-term help, so our support for households in the winter months continues with the warm home discount, providing 2.2 million households with £140 off their energy bill this year. We are continuing to improve the scheme by expanding it and consulting on new ways to improve targeting to reach those most in need. Since 2011, it has provided more than £3 billion of rebates to households, helping keep homes warmer over the colder months.
Winter fuel payments provide pension age households with financial support worth up to £300 each year and cold weather payments support vulnerable households through particularly cold spells. They provided more than 3.6 million households in Great Britain with support last winter.
Alongside all the direct support, the voluntary agreement with energy suppliers has been crucial over the past year in protecting vulnerable customers. Our work with energy suppliers to ensure the best protection for low-income and vulnerable consumers and promote best customer service in a thriving energy market is vital, so we are working to reduce the impact of debt on fuel-poor households and identify those at risk of self-disconnection or self-rationing. Ofgem rules require suppliers to offer emergency and “friendly hours” credit to all prepayment customers at risk of self-disconnection. We are also working to improve the communications and advice available to everyone, to ensure that better engagement and information are readily accessible to consumers.
I assure hon. Members that we remain fully committed to addressing and reducing fuel poverty for our most vulnerable constituents so that all households can be assured of a warm and affordable home. We will continue to drive forward on delivering energy efficiency measures to reduce energy bills and create warmer, safer living environments, while providing direct support with energy bills and working alongside the energy market to ensure a better consumer experience and protect customers. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue and look forward to hearing from colleagues.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the opportunity to talk about the whole question of fuel poverty. It is very helpful that an annual debate is required in Government time so that we can get to the bottom of the issues. We certainly need to, because as the Minister mentions, 3.2 million households in England, or 13.4%, are still in fuel poverty. I might add that that is under the new metric that the Government have introduced over the past year, along with their document “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households in England” and the updated fuel poverty strategy. Unlike in a number of other areas, the Government do appear to have a strategy on fuel poverty now, which is a good step forward. It is based on some changes in methodology and hence in the slant of a number of commitments on fuel poverty that the Government have made for the future.
Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we should not in any way underplay the significance of what has happened over the past year. The pandemic has probably driven a substantial number of additional households into fuel poverty because people have been staying at home, using more energy and paying a lot more in energy bills. That effect is likely to continue for quite a long while, so there are several factors to consider in thinking about where we are now with fuel poverty and where we want to go.
One of the key changes that has been set out this year is a change in the definition of fuel poverty—what it consists of and how it is measured. I was a little surprised when I first heard that Lord Lilley, the former right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, had come up with a definition of fuel poverty, but that is not actually the low-income, low energy efficiency definition set out in the strategy. What is important about the new definition is that it explicitly includes a metric involving property banding in England. Property bands have not been specified in a definition before, although they have been in the Government’s ambitions for 2030; the Minister mentioned the target to get the properties of as many people in fuel poverty up to band C as possible.
Although that may not seem like an enormous difference, I think it is a really fundamental change inasmuch as it explicitly recognises for the first time that a very substantial element of fuel poverty is not just income, although that is very important, and is not just energy prices, although they too are very important, but is actually the energy efficiency of the properties people are living in and how bad that may be. Indeed, we know that there is a very considerable correlation between income, for example, and the kind of properties that people who have a low income—well below the median rate—are living in.
That correlation is very clear for the bands of properties people are living in. Indeed, we can see from the calculations of what a household bill is likely to consist of that that is a tremendous problem for people who have a low income. For example, an average band C property will have an estimated energy bill of about £600 a year. Go to band D and that figure is £900, but band E is £1,400, which is double or more the band C level. Worse than that, go down to band F and band G, and it gets to treble or more the band C bill. Those people who are in fuel poverty, with a lower income and less able to pay bills, are by and large facing much larger bills in the first place because of the nature of the property they are living in. The strategy essentially puts a much greater emphasis than hitherto on getting those properties into a fit state for people to live in so that their bills are such that fuel poverty is essentially written out by the energy efficiency of the properties the people are living in.
The recognition of that particular metric does, however, lead to very substantial and grave policy implications and commitments for the future, because what the Government are essentially saying is that they are going to get to average band C by 2030 to drive fuel poverty out in the way I have described. The judgment we have to make now is: are the Government in a position right now to actually fulfil that particular ambition in order to carry out the fuel poverty strategy they have set their mind on over the next period? My suggestion right now is that they are clearly not.
The Minister has, in a slightly Panglossian way, set out a number of commitments that will lead to the strategy being achieved by 2030, but they are mostly short-term strategies and mostly strategies that are poorly funded. In one instance, a strategy was mentioned in the poverty strategy itself:
“Invest in energy efficiency of households through the £2 billion Green Homes Grant, including up to £10,000 per low income household to install energy efficient and low-carbon heating measures in their homes”,
but it actually disappeared just a month after it was set down in the fuel poverty strategy as one of the key drivers as far as the energy efficiency of homes are concerned. This is the green homes grant system that, as the Minister has acknowledged, got into terrible difficulties. It was, frankly, a pathetic attempt at investing £2 billion in energy efficiency in homes and needs to be recovered and revised very rapidly.
In that context, it is a shame that this debate comes just before the Government’s heat and buildings strategy is to be published. I understand that it is to be published shortly, but we are still on the wrong side of it. What I am looking for in that strategy is a coherent plan—not just a few bits and pieces here and there—for building an efficiency strategy right through the next decade, so that when we get to 2030, band C is the median for all properties. That will require a large amount of investment, and thinking of new ways to undertake changes in energy efficiency through bodily uprating the energy efficiency of properties throughout the whole country. It will also mean concentrating on those sectors—particularly the private rented sector—where we know that band D, E and F properties are concentrated, and having a coherent strategy to tackle the very low energy efficiency of such properties across the country.
I hope that in the heat and buildings strategy the Government have not given way to the pressure I know there has been in respect of ensuring that landlords in the private rented sector have a greater responsibility for bringing their properties up to a decent level of energy efficiency. Many of those who are in fuel poverty live in the private rented sector, sometimes in appalling conditions yet faced with enormous bills that they simply cannot afford, as part of their income, normally to discharge.
There is now a great onus on the Government to come forward with an energy efficiency strategy that meets the commitments made in the fuel poverty strategy from February onwards and to give a convincing account of how that strategy is to be met. Of course, I think all Members would agree that that is not the whole issue as far as fuel poverty is concerned; the question of income and what one does about that as far as benefits and assistance are concerned remains very important. That is also important in terms of the effect of the new strategy on people who are objectively in fuel poverty but happen to live in properties that are band C or above.
Several hundred thousand people have been knocked off, as it were, the fuel poverty concern radar by the LILEE—low income low energy efficiency—definition that came in this year. Those people’s circumstances have not objectively changed—they are in exactly the same position as they were—but the new definition has moved them out of a particular category. I hope that that particular section of the population will not be forgotten as a result of the new strategy. They would clearly need to be approached in different ways in terms of vulnerability measures, some of which the Minister outlined. We should not think that because we have changed the definition, we have somehow solved fuel poverty for that group of people.
We need to continue with a three-pronged approach to our fuel poverty targets: yes, we need energy efficiency; yes, we need to consider incomes and to make sure that people have the income to pay the bills in the first place; and, of course, we need to consider energy prices themselves. We have not yet had through the results of the energy price cap considerations for this year—I think that they, too, will come out shortly—but I hope that when they come out they will be relatively good news for those people who face increasing bills, year on year, as they struggle to try to meet their warmth and home energy commitments on low incomes and in the badly insulated homes that we all hope will be, by 2030, very much a thing of the past.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This is a time-limited debate, but we will try not to put a time limit on individual contributions, so I ask for restraint, please.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I support the Government’s aim of making a major reduction in fuel poverty, and I admire the Minister’s enthusiasm for the task and her wish to share with Parliament and to listen to good ideas from across the House.
There are three ways to tackle fuel poverty. The first is to help people have more efficient appliances and warmer homes so that they need to burn less fuel. The second is to cut the price of fuel itself. The third is to help people find better-paid jobs and give them encouragement in ways to boost their income.
We first need to work through the Minister on these plans and projects so that more homes can be upgraded and people do not have to live in damp and cold surroundings. How right she is about that. I ask her to make common cause with me in approaching the Treasury, because now that we are free to choose what to put VAT on and what to take it off, can we please have a Brexit bonus for those in fuel poverty by taking VAT off all those things they need to buy in order to improve their homes? Why are we still charging VAT on insulation materials, boiler controls and a whole range of green products that are necessary to lower a home’s fuel bill and improve its warmth and fitness for purpose? That would not be too big a charge on the Treasury, in terms of lost revenue, but it would be a great win for both the Government’s green strategy and their fuel poverty strategy. A bit dearer would be tackling the price of fuel directly by taking VAT off domestic fuel in its entirety, and that too I would welcome, because I think that fuel is expensive in this country and electricity is becoming very expensive.
I also urge the Minister to look at electricity policy generally. Time was when we had a great three-legged strategy for electrical power. The first leg was that the Government were responsible for ensuring that we could always generate all the electrical power we needed in Britain for ourselves, with a decent margin of spare capacity in case a large power station went down or there was a sudden surge in demand during a very cold winter. We do not seem to have that any more. I urge her to take action as soon as possible to commission the electrical power that we are going to need, because we do not wish to be dependent on unreliable and potentially very expensive foreign sources for import, should we get into difficulties with the amount of power we have available.
The second leg of the strategy was to go for cheap energy, because that is the way to get industrial recovery and revival, and to get more people out of fuel poverty because they can afford domestic fuel. Again, we seem to have dropped that leg. We seem to be opting for rather dearer fuel. We used to believe that the fuel supplied should always be the cheapest, whereas now, for various reasons, we often opt for a dearer way of producing electricity, or we opt for an apparently cheaper way but we need a lot of back-up capacity because renewables can be interrupted. We need to look at the charging mechanism and try to ensure that, with our overall new mix of energy, we can get cheaper power.
Then of course we also always had green imperatives, which are very necessary, and it is particularly important that clean air is central to the whole ambition, and that wherever we are burning fuels, we do everything we can to avoid dust, soot and particles emerging into the atmosphere, because they are not pleasant for any of us.
Boosting personal incomes is probably too wide a subject for the limited time of this debate, but let me just say that levelling up must be about encouraging people to go on their own personal journeys. It must be about making available the educational opportunities, training opportunities and promotion opportunities, within public bodies and throughout the private sector. It must be about working with people so that they see that if they are low paid today, they have a reasonable prospect of being better paid tomorrow.
Cheap energy can underpin all of that, because if we went for more cheaper energy, supplied domestically, we would have a bigger industrial base, because energy is often a much bigger cost than labour in a modern, fully-automated factory. That would create more better paid jobs to go alongside the factory; I am thinking of all the things that need to be done to design, market and sell on the products that the largely automated factory can produce. So please, Minister, let us make common cause with the Treasury, do more at home and create more better paid jobs at home. Let us understand the role, in all our ambitions, of having enough electrical capacity producing cheap power here.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was shouting at the television last night.
The subject of today’s debate is very important. Everybody agrees that fuel poverty is a bad thing. It is debilitating. It causes mental and physical health problems. It is estimated that it can cost the NHS in England up to £2 billion a year in related health conditions. It causes people to die earlier, and it further shortens the remaining lifespan of those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It can force the terminally ill out of their homes as they face a death that they would rather manage in their own homes with their families. So I ask the Minister to consider the recommendations of the report by the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness, entitled “No place like home”. I pay tribute to the work it has done in conjunction with Marie Curie.
National Energy Action estimates that, shamefully, there are approximately 10,000 premature deaths a year related to fuel poverty, so we really need to do what we can to eliminate this scourge. In Scotland, we have greater pressures because we have a colder and wetter climate and a high proportion of homes are off the gas grid. Within the off-gas-grid cohort in the highlands, many customers pay up to £400 more per annum to heat their homes because they have restricted meters and pay up to 4p more per unit of electricity. I ask the Minister why she thinks it is fair that that surcharge is added in an area that is actually now a net exporter of electricity to the rest of the UK. When will that injustice be resolved?
As the Minister said, fuel poverty is a devolved matter, but energy policy overall is reserved to Westminster, and 85% of welfare spending in Scotland is reserved to the UK Government. Although the Scottish Government are trying to address the devolved aspects, they are constrained by UK Government policy. One simple example of that is that the UK Government have confirmed that the universal credit uplift of £20 per week will be removed. If that uplift was required for people to live through covid, it is obvious that it will be required going forward. Otherwise, more people will end up in fuel poverty.
In contrast, last year, the Scottish Government introduced child winter heating assistance, which will support the families of about 14,000 of the most seriously disabled children and young people with automatic payments of £200 a year. As always, the Scottish Government are having to work wonders within a fixed budget.
Energy efficiency is devolved, but the UK Government refuse to cut VAT on insulation measures, despite a request from the Scottish Government. I support the call from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) for that to be removed.
The UK Government designed the warm home discount and, although it provides welcome relief, it is actually paid for by other energy users, which puts others under pressure in terms of energy bills. It is the UK Government who are responsible for the energy company obligation scheme. The Committee on Fuel Poverty stated in 2018 that it has not been targeted at the correct audience. In March, the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that ECO will not achieve the fuel poverty targets required, and that the reality is that
“the poorest pay proportionally the most…this makes it a regressive policy.”
Energy UK, whose members are responsible for delivering the ECO scheme, has expressed concerns about the impact on the bills of the poorest. When will the UK Government and the Minister listen to those concerns and make relevant changes?
As we know, it is the UK Government who were responsible for the failed green deal scheme, which came about because they were determined not to have direct Government investment or on-book borrowing. I again ask the Minister: when will the HELMS victims be compensated for the mis-selling of green deals to them?
How renewable energy is paid for is under the remit of the UK Government. As a consequence, nearly a quarter of our electricity bills are now accounted for by energy policy decisions. That again puts more pressure on bill payers and could tip the scales for some, pushing them into fuel poverty, especially those in off-grid homes. The current imbalance in policy costs between electricity and gas bills really needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Overall, we need more direct UK Government investment and the UK Government need to follow the lead of the Scottish Government. It is not just the likes of myself as an Opposition Member saying that. Energy companies say it; many third sector organisations say it; the Committee on Climate Change, in its 2019 progress report, said it; and so did the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in its 2019 report, “Energy efficiency: building towards net zero”.
There are some key points in that BEIS Committee report, which stated:
“We note that Scotland’s investment of four times more than England cannot be explained by a less efficient dwelling stock…For example, in 2017, 49 per cent of homes in England had insulated walls, compared to 60 per cent of homes in Scotland…Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England, where in some bands, progress has stalled.”
The statistics actually show that: 44% of Scottish homes were rated EPC band C or better in 2018, compared with just 34% in England and 28% in Wales.
The UK Government have given us a failed green homes grant scheme, whereby last year the Treasury clawed back £1.5 billion of the original allocation. What is actually needed from the UK Government is a long-term energy efficiency investment programme that will create jobs and deliver at best value, avoiding spikes in cost. It could be part of a green industrial revolution. It is no wonder that the BEIS Committee concluded its report by stating:
“The Government appears indifferent towards how public per capita spend in household energy efficiency in England compares to other parts of the UK…the governments of the devolved nations treat energy efficiency as a much higher priority than the UK Government.”
That comment on indifference is particularly damning. I would like to hear how the Minister responds to that.
By contrast, let us look to Scotland. The Scottish Government have an award-winning fuel poverty scheme, Warmer Homes Scotland, which is designed to help those who are living in or are at risk of fuel poverty through installing energy insulation and heating measures into individual properties. More than £124 million has been invested through the scheme since its launch in 2015, helping over 20,000 households. By the end of 2021, the Scottish Government will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency, including nearly £200 million this year alone.
Another important measure in Scotland is Home Energy Scotland, which is also award-winning. It provides impartial free advice for anybody concerned about paying their energy bills. Yet again, UK and English-based consumer groups think it is a model that the UK Government need to adopt. As we look to decarbonise our heating systems, having an impartial advice service, as we do in Scotland, will be critical when people have to consider key choices such as whether to purchase a new boiler, or when they are considering low carbon energy such as heat pumps.
That brings me to the target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028. When will the Government bring forward a policy road map for the funding, and why are they not starting with a rolling programme aimed at off-gas-grid properties? That, combined with energy efficiency measures, would be an ideal way to tackle one category of fuel poverty. It is no wonder that the Committee on Climate Change, in its latest progress report, is scathing about the lack of UK Government policies. We really need to see the heat and buildings strategy, although it was disappointing that no energy Bill was listed in the Queen’s Speech.
The Scottish Government remain committed to implementing the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 in full. It is the most ambitious and comprehensive fuel poverty legislation in the UK, setting challenging but achievable targets, including that by 2040 no more than 5% of households are fuel poor and no more than 1% in extreme fuel poverty. That is compared with the UK Government’s targets, which are based solely on energy certification, which in itself is not sufficient to eliminate fuel poverty.
In conclusion, it is quite clear that fuel poverty is another matter where the UK Government hold Scotland back. Plenty of other bodies can see that change is needed in UK-wide policy, which the UK Government are responsible for. We really need to see policy in action—sooner rather than later.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
This is an incredibly important debate—it is of huge importance for residents across Hastings and Rye—and I welcome the Minister’s introductory comments on fuel poverty. It is hard to comprehend that, in our country today, some households still have to choose between heating and eating. The House of Commons report published at the end of June estimates that some 3.2 million households across England are in fuel poverty, with around 600,000 individuals having fallen into fuel poverty during the coronavirus pandemic.
I have seen for myself the pain and anguish that fuel poverty can cause for a household. Representing Hastings and Rye is a fantastic honour, as I genuinely believe it to be one of the greatest places in the UK to live and work. However, we have to face up to some of the harsh realities and the difficulties that we have. The tortuous decision of a parent who has to choose between putting the heating on in the winter and providing a hot meal for their child at the end of the day is a reality for far too many residents in my constituency. Over 10% of households in Hastings are in fuel poverty, a figure that shocks and saddens me.
However, the Government are helping to address that with their fuel poverty strategy. I am pleased to see from the energy White Paper that the warm home discount will be expanded to nearly 3 million homes, which will help households save £150 a year on electricity bills. I am particularly pleased to see that the social housing decarbonisation fund demonstrator has awarded £62 million to social landlords across England and Scotland to test innovative approaches to retrofitting at scale, with more than 2,300 social homes improved to EPC band C already.
I have seen the positive impact that retrofitting renewable energy, helped by grant funding at the time, can have in social housing. As a district councillor for Eastern Rother ward, I highlighted the issue of fuel poverty in Camber and Rye Harbour. Night storage heaters are expensive and do not provide heat when it is needed. Black mould and condensation are health concerns. I was delighted a couple of years ago to be asked to look at some retrofitted social housing in Camber, where solar panels with batteries and air source heat pumps had been put in. The tenants were delighted. There was no black mould and no condensation, and their homes were warm at lower cost.
However, we now need a new scheme to replace the old green homes grant, to help households make their properties more energy efficient, insulating them in the winter months and reducing their bills. Better-insulated homes will not only provide a financial benefit to those living in them, but help the Government and the country to meet our ambitious environmental targets.
We must do that in a way that does not burden households with huge costs to replace old boilers, install insulation and get their properties to an EPC rating of C or above. That is why I believe that a grant system to help households—especially those who are really struggling, such as the 10% of households in my constituency in fuel poverty—to improve the energy efficiency of their homes is one of the best ways forward. I would welcome any update that the Minister can provide on support for households already in fuel poverty who will need to improve their properties to meet the Government’s ambitious target that every home should have an EPC rating of C or above by 2030.
Let me end on a positive note. Although the recent pandemic has pushed up the number of households in fuel poverty, I am hopeful that the creativity of this Government and their determination to support and help those most in need will prove to be effective in finding a way to build on the support that is already in place and offer a way out of fuel poverty for thousands of households in my constituency and millions across our country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much for a very concise speech of five minutes. If everybody follows suit, we will get everybody in.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Good afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be brief. A subject like this is one where I always prick up my ears, because the village of Altnaharra, in the centre of the Kyle of Sutherland in the north of my constituency, is always the coldest place each winter in the whole of the UK. I want to do two things: I want to share some statistics that have been provided to me; and I want to namecheck the Highland Council, which takes fuel poverty extremely seriously and has done good work.
The Highland Council’s own report identifies huge areas of the highlands in fuel poverty. Nearly all the county of Sutherland has a fuel poverty level of 70% of households. The Kyle of Sutherland Development Trust carried out research recently which showed that one in four children in Sutherland live below the poverty line. All this, as we know, has been exacerbated by the pandemic.
Fuel poverty, boy oh boy, has been an issue for very many years. It is made worse by the electricity distribution charges that are levied by area. As a result, the highlands is disproportionately affected with the highest distribution charges levied anywhere in the UK. That is, ironically, in spite of the fact that we produce huge amounts of energy from green power—wind and hydro—which we actually export to the central belt of Scotland, sending it down south. The result is that the cost of each unit of electricity in the highlands is significantly higher than in London or in the central belt of Scotland.
In September last year, the Highland Council wrote to the UK Government asking them to bring in a national distribution charge for electricity to prevent that unfair practice. The reply said that they would not, but that a £60 million fund would be made available to mitigate the impact of higher distribution costs. My good friend Councillor Richard Gale, the councillor for East Sutherland, does not think there has been a reply or any further comment from the Government. May I therefore very politely ask my friend the Minister if she could possibly look at that and see what happened to the £60 million fund? If it could be forthcoming it would be fantastically helpful.
I completely support the argument put forward for the reduction in VAT on installation materials. That would be a tremendous step in the right direction. Let us hope that consideration will be given to it. Finally, the population of my constituency, and certainly the county of Sutherland, is an ageing population, so we can imagine how that is made still worse when we pile that on top of the fuel poverty issue. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for your time and patience. That is my short speech concluded.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Some 20 years ago, I introduced my private Member’s Bill to eliminate fuel poverty. It received Royal Assent in 2000 and was called the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act. It was inspired by a Polish gentleman living in a high rise block of flats who died of fuel poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said, no one should die of fuel poverty. I am delighted that fuel poverty in England fell by 3.9 million households between 1996 and 2004, and decreased by 34% between 2010 and 2019, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the fact we are having this debate today means we still have not eliminated fuel poverty.
My 2000 Act placed on the Government a duty to produce a strategy to ensure an end to fuel poverty
“as far as is reasonably practicable”
in 15 years. However, in a subsequent court case the judgment was that the words of the Act meant there could only be an “effort” to achieve the targets, instead of guaranteeing that they would be reached. In addition, the courts ruled that the words “as far as is reasonably practicable” meant that the Government could deprioritise fuel poverty if, for instance, resources were tight. In short, therefore, the courts ruled that there was no duty to end fuel poverty, only to try to do so. As a result, fuel poverty was not ended by 2016.
Fuel poverty needs to be eliminated, as the whole House agrees, as quickly as possible to maintain our population’s health and to prevent any avoidable deaths that can happen as a result of a cold home. I am pleased, however, that my Act has been updated and that the current duty to bring fuel-poor homes up to at least Energy Performance Certificate Band C by 2030 is set in regulations. However, the words
“as far as is reasonably practicable”
are used time and again, so I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm today that the only exceptions to ending fuel poverty will be made due to the physical characteristics of the property or the occupiers’ refusal to have works carried out.
I introduced—listen to me, as if I am a separate Government—a Back-Bench Bill called the Domestic Properties (Minimum Energy Performance) Bill in the last Session
“to ensure that domestic properties have a minimum energy performance rating of C”
and
“to give the Secretary of State powers to require persons to take action in pursuance of that duty”.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to agree to a meeting with her officials to discuss energy performance of buildings. I am working with the industry and experts on a revised version of the Bill. I know that no Government enjoys private Members’ Bills in reality; they always like to promote them themselves—I am not bothered about who takes the glory. I believe that it would certainly be beneficial in reducing fuel poverty if she and officials worked with me on the new Bill. Among other things, it would reduce the impact on the environment and make fuel more accessible to all in privately rented properties, social housing, new homes and owner-occupier properties.
There are brilliant charities throughout the country, especially in Southend, that help people who are struggling financially. Age Concern in Southend offers a range of support for older people. One of the concerning trends that it is starting to see is the number of older people requiring services that indicate they are housebound. This means that they use more fuel for heating and cooking while they are on a fixed income. There may be a fuel poverty crisis coming our way. This has, of course, been intensified by the coronavirus pandemic. The types of inquiries that Age Concern is receiving are for its befriending services, social activities and help at home. The Government need to invest in preventive measures that would get older people out of the house and active again. This will keep people healthier and help to alleviate the need for fuel use. This is where the Haven community hub in Westcliff comes in, which encourages people to leave their homes, where it is safe to do so with the current restrictions, and socialise.
In conclusion, it is promising that colleagues are debating this topic today and there have been improvements in reducing the rate of fuel poverty in the last 21 years, but really, I say to my right hon. Friend, we need to do more. The coronavirus pandemic has further pushed developments back and I hope that the Government perform their statutory duties by bringing fuel-poor households up to EPC band C by 2030. The wording of these regulations should not limit the extent to which fuel poverty can be reduced, as my Act suggested 21 years ago. People still need heating and electricity during the coronavirus pandemic and these problems will never go away unless concrete legislative action is actually taken.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), especially given his track record on this very important issue. Today is the first opportunity we have had to debate this subject since my fuel poverty and energy price caps debate in November last year. We all know that despite fuel poverty being a devolved issue, two of its three key drivers—energy prices and income—are reserved. We also know that just as living in a fuel-poor household impacts on many aspects of everyday life, there are numerous factors that impact on the drivers. That is one reason that I often raise fuel poverty in the House, most recently presenting an Energy Pricing Bill to urge us to have legislation to close the loophole that allows energy suppliers to exclude existing customers from their cheapest available tariffs.
The Library briefing highlights that the “poorest households pay disproportionately” towards the energy company obligation scheme and that this UK Government policy is considered “regressive” by the Environmental Audit Committee. I would argue that the loophole allowing existing energy customers to subsidise new energy customers is also regressive. While I am under little illusion about the chances of my Bill progressing, I hope that the Government will consider and take on these points.
I will not repeat much of the serious aspects of fuel poverty that I covered less than eight months ago, except to reiterate that we cannot underestimate the implications of living in a fuel-poor household and we must do everything to end the dilemma of whether a person heats their home or feeds their family, because that causes physical and mental distress and ill health. It is these health implications that I want to highlight today. However, it appears that it is not a priority for this Government given the announcement on the phase-out of the £20 universal credit uplift, potentially pushing half a million people below the poverty line just in time for the winter.
Through being forced to make heat or eat choices, people in fuel poverty have a poor diet if they want a warm home, and that causes and exacerbates physical and mental health issues as well as slowing recovery from existing conditions. Yet if those in fuel poverty choose to eat well they run other risks: living in a cold house increases their chance of suffering from heart attack, stroke or respiratory illness. The Committee on Fuel Poverty has already documented the correlation between cold homes and excess winter deaths and the World Health Organisation estimates that 30% of excess winter deaths are directly attributable to living in cold housing. It can be argued that there is a strong case for giving GPs the ability to prescribe heat.
I urge those who have not yet done so to read “No place like home”, the all-party group on terminal illness inquiry into housing and fuel poverty at the end of life. It is stark reading, but crucially it highlights the vicious cycle of fuel poverty and terminal illness. Additionally, the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, an adviser to the Scottish Government on tackling fuel poverty, highlights asthma, chest, breathing and mental health problems and slowed physical growth and cognitive development all as conditions that affect children living in a cold home. Elderly and vulnerable people living in cold houses also experience an increased risk of circulatory and respiratory disease, exacerbation of arthritis, an increased risk of falls and injury, social isolation, and poor mental health including anxiety and depression. In reality, fuel poverty disproportionately affects the most vulnerable in our society.
The effects of fuel poverty also further strain our overstretched NHS, which has borne the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic has also shone a light on the pockets of poverty that exist within our communities. Its economic impact is taking its toll and combined with increased fuel bills as people spend even more time at home can lead to even more people struggling.
Eliminating fuel poverty is an important part of tackling poverty in general and therefore reducing inequalities in our society. The Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel is working with Members and organisations to provide information that can help us better understand the connections between fuel poverty and health, and it has welcomed the support the Scottish Government have given to those in fuel poverty and poverty generally throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
I could say much more about what is happening in Scotland and what is wrong with the support we get from Westminster, but I am mindful of the time and that other Members want to speak. I am sure we will return to this debate over the months ahead. I look forward to the Minister’s summing up and hope that the Government will consider some of the points raised in my speech and Bill.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I am grateful to speak in such a vital debate.
As many Members have stated, the scale of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom is staggeringly and unacceptably high. In England, more than one in 10 households is forced to spend more than they can afford on energy, and in my own city of Coventry that figure almost doubles. Those numbers should be a source of shame for the Government and we have heard time and again about the devastating impact of fuel poverty on family finances, health and mental health. The pandemic has certainly exacerbated the impact of fuel poverty.
The covid-19 issue has slashed incomes for many and increased home energy usage. Unsurprisingly, this has led to increased debt owed to big utility companies. With many people still not working full time or at all and the furlough scheme on the verge of disappearing entirely, more than 2.5 million people will be forced to begin paying back the fuel debt incurred throughout the pandemic, which many simply cannot afford.
Last March the Government launched a policy encouraging energy companies to reassess the energy debt owed by those who were fuel-poor and suffering because of the pandemic. This policy has since lapsed and I urge the Government to take immediate action to revive and strengthen it, because without support many families in Coventry will find themselves struggling to repay debt and bills that they cannot afford.
There are other concrete steps that the Government can and must take to alleviate fuel poverty. Sustained investment in making homes more energy-efficient must be a priority in the upcoming spending review: investment is vital to reducing fuel poverty. In fact, the Conservative party’s manifesto at the last election promised £2.5 billion for a home upgrade grant scheme for homes that are not fuel-efficient, significantly lowering the cost of heating them. The Prime Minister repeated that pledge in his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, but warm words will not warm homes. We need investment right now.
If the Government do not upgrade homes immediately, we will see those in fuel poverty suffer increased health complications and further financial strife. From speaking to energy experts this week, I learned that single parents and their children are most negatively impacted by fuel poverty. It is single parents and their children who will continue to suffer the effects of fuel poverty in the highest numbers if the Government do not follow through on their lofty promises.
As we work to make Britain’s homes more efficient, we must also ensure that all new policies are fair. That is why the Government must revise the new green gas levy, which presently means that energy users, whether they are a single mother or a big company, will pay the same amount towards subsidising biogas. Surely that is a very regressive tax: it means that the poorest will pay a much higher proportion of their income than very wealthy and big companies. The Government must fix the green tax levy so that it does not punish the poor unfairly. They must not leave the most vulnerable literally out in the cold. I really hope that the Minister will consider some of the points made today.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).
Fuel poverty is like food poverty: it is not complicated. It is poverty, and I do not know anyone who has chosen to be poor. To address it, we need better-paid jobs, affordable housing and reinvestment in the welfare state, and we need people to be treated equally, with fairness and respect. When someone, or a family, has no gas or electricity in their home and cannot afford to pay their bills, that is fuel poverty. When they are unable to have a shower, warm their home and make a hot meal, they are in crisis—they are in fuel poverty.
Fuel poverty is not as visible as food poverty—we cannot see families queuing up for fuel parcels—but for families around the UK rationing their hot water and for pensioners shivering, it is very real. The latest estimate from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was that there were more than 3 million households in fuel poverty—and that was prior to the pandemic.
I recently spoke to a headteacher of a school in my constituency. Many of the low-income families there will be drained of money because of costly fuel meters, and in spite of their child contracting the virus, they cannot afford to isolate because they must leave their home to top up their gas and electricity meters. Their dilemma is understandable when we consider how punitive the penalties are for entering into arrears on a prepayment meter: as much as 70% of a top-up amount can be deducted if the payee is in debt. These companies make it harder for poorer people and families—they take more from those who do not have much. The Government really must do something about it. They cannot stand back and pretend that it is not happening. Will they make a difference for all communities, to prevent all people and families from experiencing fuel poverty? They must review this measure and do something about it.
As we know, debt can quickly snowball, with vulnerable people turning to payday lenders or worse. Universal credit, with its delays and sanctions, just makes their circumstances more desperate. Yesterday, in the Justice Committee, I became aware that as a result of certain debts due to poverty, such as an unpaid TV licence, a person can end up in prison. It is acutely expensive to keep someone in prison—much more expensive than a TV licence. Ultimately, that means that people are being punished for being poor. How does that make sense?
Let us look at health. Health services in England spend £1.3 billion to treat the impacts of cold homes, such as bronchitis. With poverty comes worry and stress, which can lead to emotional and mental health difficulties. All those things can have an impact on primary and secondary healthcare, and they all come at a cost. With water bills, lower-income households can pay lower rates, but there is no such provision for energy bills. Will the Minister commit today to introducing a measure, such as a social tariff, that will bring consistency to the Government’s policies? As we have already heard, the Government have also made a manifesto commitment to making our energy system more efficient. Do they have any intention of following through on that?
I would like to end by drawing attention to one of the victims of this cruel crisis. Christians Against Poverty told me of the miserable experience of John, who said:
“It’s an awful time when you can’t get electric, you can’t have the lights on. Never mind the TV and the radio. It feels black, it is black and it feels dark. It’s not nice. You think what’s the point of trying to struggle on?”
I hope the Government are listening, as this problem can be solved. We need a new fuel strategy—a new fuel strategy that focuses on green energy and a new fuel strategy that equally focuses on the customer’s welfare.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
No one should have to make the choice between feeding their family or heating their home, yet this is the choice that the 3.2 million households living in fuel poverty face. In Bath and North East Somerset, generally considered an affluent area, over 10% of households are struggling with their fuel bills. We are fortunate enough to have an excellent Citizens Advice, but Citizens Advice cannot replace urgent Government action.
The effects of fuel poverty are heartbreaking, such as needing to wrap up in a duvet in damp conditions with restricted mobility. Existing health conditions, including mental health, deteriorate fast and family life is often under severe pressure. The pandemic has made things even worse. It has created additional financial hardship while increasing household bills, as people were forced to stay at home and wholesale energy prices rose. Research suggests that people working from home added an extra £16 a month on energy costs, adding up to £195 a year for those on poor value tariffs.
We must address fuel poverty not only to end this unjustifiable inequality, but because it could be a major step forward in tackling the climate emergency. All too often fuel poverty goes hand in hand with poor housing, especially poor insulation. Energy inefficient homes are not just bad for the environment, but a huge drain on the household bills of low-income families. Behind the reduction in fuel-poor homes in 2018-19 was the increase to an energy efficiency rating to band C or higher, but the Government are relying only on the energy company obligation and the warm home discount. That is simply not enough.
The Government need to make much more serious efforts to drive the retrofitting of Britain’s old housing stock. We need a coherent plan, and we need action, not words. Where are the training programmes to dramatically build up the skills base we need? Where are the tough energy efficiency and heating regulations? Why do the Government not give more powers to lead on the delivery of the schemes to local authorities, which are in a much better position to support house owners and landlords, and better identify the households living in fuel poverty?
The clearest example of the Government’s failure is the scrapping of the green homes grant only five months after it was introduced. Only 6% of the budget was spent, and only a fraction of the vouchers were given out. Rather than ending the whole scheme as quickly as it was introduced, the Government should have extended the scheme over 10 years, with the clear aim to end fuel poverty and cut greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the decade. With a long-term commitment, the industry would have been able to scale up to deliver this massive task. Knee-jerk actions and short-termism are not just bad for the environment; they are letting down the 3.2 million households that will continue to live in fuel poverty. I urge the Government to reinstate a new net-zero homes grant, but this time with a long-term commitment to end fuel poverty once and for all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to speak on this issue. As others have said, fuel poverty is a devolved matter, but energy prices and incomes are the responsibility of this place, so this debate is as pertinent to my constituents as it is to anyone elsewhere. I was involved in this issue in my former role in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and also on the council, where we had many initiatives to address fuel poverty. It was good to be involved in those initiatives, because those sorts of issues were coming into my office on a regular basis.
The pandemic has exacerbated the issue of fuel poverty. For me, when I was at home and unable to do visits, I was still able to do some of the work around the farm. I am sure everyone has heard people being described as a Jack of all trades and a master of none. I would not say that I was a master of none. I can probably make sure the carpentry stays together and the electrics do not break down, but does it look pretty? Probably not. Maybe that is the difference between a skilled person and me.
For many others, however, lockdown was almost a time of captivity, and those on the poverty threshold who lived above the benefit cap and whose wages were then reduced to 80% had to make every penny count when they were restricted to their homes. When people are in their homes for a long period of time, their heating bills go up. For those who worked in offices, HMRC allowed an allowance to be claimed against tax when they were working from home. That was not available for those on furlough, however. Fuel poverty in our nation is very real and it has been felt more than ever during the covid lockdown. People could not head to their mum’s or their sister’s for the day to use their heating; they had to heat their own home or sit there in blankets and extra clothes, as others have said. That is not a picture I normally associate with the UK, yet data has shown that that was the case.
In August, Citizens Advice estimated that 2.8 million UK adults had fallen behind on their energy bills. The Policy Institute at King’s College in London estimated that three in 10 people had experienced a reduction in their income as a result of coronavirus, that three in 10 people had cut back on non-essential spending, and that only two in 10 had more money left at the end of the month. The combination of reduced incomes and increased debt has had a profound impact on householders. A National Energy Action survey of organisations working to support fuel-poor households found that three quarters said that there was a high risk of an increased build-up of fuel debt as a direct result of the pandemic.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, and one of the things we are interested in is the insulation of homes and making homes more suitable for people. We have done an inquiry on that, and for me this issue is incredibly important. The APPG on fuel poverty and energy efficiency has produced a marvellous briefing with a number of key points that I absolutely agree with. One of the most pertinent is that, within the upcoming heat and building strategy, the UK Government must set out a clear energy efficiency standard for both the private and social rented sectors. The briefing further highlighted that in the Government’s plans to reach net zero, regulating retail energy markets and increasing incomes must work alongside energy efficiency improvements to support all UK nations to end fuel poverty and to achieve a fair and affordable energy transition.
It is said that meeting the net zero targets could result in as much as a 20% increase in energy costs. If the experts are right and that is the case, we could have a problem. It is great to set targets for ourselves, but they must be achievable. I could set myself a target to learn Mandarin Chinese during recess, if I had the time and I was not so busy, but the reality is that learning that beautiful, complex language in that short space of time is highly unlikely. The point I am making is that targets must be achievable, which means that resources must be in place and schemes must be available to all earners and non-earners to update wall insulation, which cuts energy bills and as a bonus is better for the environment. We must commit to resourcing those schemes.
We must also commit not simply to uplifting income for some families but to changing the way they spend their money. A households is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on energy costs. In Northern Ireland, the rate of fuel poverty is 22%. Three factors can and must be addressed by the Government: income, the cost of energy and the domestic energy efficiency of homes. The need is clear and the path is clear. We must begin the journey remembering to bring the working poor and those who are on benefits with us. If we do that—and I believe the Government have that commitment—we can achieve something.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Members who have secured this important debate.
An estimated 3.2 million households, or one in 10, are currently living in fuel poverty in England, meaning that they are below the poverty line and face much higher bills due to poor levels of energy efficiency in their homes. The covid-19 crisis has worsened existing inequalities that our communities face and has pushed many into unimaginable levels of hardship. In August, Citizens Advice estimated that 2.8 million UK adults had fallen behind on their energy bills. That will no doubt include people who receive legacy benefits and will be denied the £20-a-week uplift. I urge the Minister to press her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to end this injustice, which has resulted in 4,889 of my constituents missing out on vital support during the pandemic.
This week in Liverpool West Derby I spoke about this issue to Jo from St Andrews Community Network, which does a fantastic job in combating poverty in my community. Jo told me that it recently sent out an email asking the networks of food banks throughout my constituency to prepare kitchen packs for people suffering from fuel poverty who can only use a kettle to prepare foods. These packs consists of noodles, tinned fruit and meats that can be eaten cold. Let that sink in: it is 2021 and many families in my constituency are using a kettle to prepare food for their children’s meals on a daily basis. How is that levelling up, Minister? I put on record my gratitude to the team at Liverpool City Council for the citizen support scheme, which offers support for people in crisis, but without a fair funding settlement for councils, it is now under threat.
As a Commons Library briefing explains, cold homes can have negative impacts on both mental and physical health, potentially adding demand on the NHS and social care providers and directly contributing towards more people dying in the upcoming winter. Health impacts of cold homes include increased risk of heart attack or stroke, respiratory illnesses, poor diet due to “heat or eat” choices, and worsening of or slow recovery from existing conditions. Those most at risk of ill health from fuel poverty include children, the elderly, people with disabilities and people with long-term illnesses.
With this in mind, it is unthinkable that in the middle of a pandemic the Government are pushing ahead with plans that will cut support and push people even further into fuel poverty. The plan to scrap the £20-a-week universal credit uplift is shameful and must be reversed. How can the Government cut universal credit when it is clear that more support is needed, not less? This comes alongside the Government ending the eviction ban and tapering down furlough, both of which will leave people vulnerable to food poverty and debt in communities throughout this land. I genuinely fear for the situation facing our community this winter when the pandemic is far from over and when, as is clear from the Library briefing, fuel poverty already leads to illnesses that place people at serious risk from covid-19.
I ask the Minister to put herself in the shoes of a mother in the winter, freezing cold because they cannot afford to put the gas heating on and heating the kettle for the noodles they have received in a kitchen pack from the food bank for their family, and ask herself if that is something that one of the wealthiest countries in the world should be allowing to happen while, worse still, making policies that enable it further. I urge her to remember that image when she devises the policies that are creating this environment and, for the good of this nation, to change course and show some humanity, not cold indifference.
Dr Whitehead
We have had an excellent debate that is absolutely up to the mark as regards the requirements of the fuel poverty legislation. The debate has underlined the human cost of fuel poverty. Contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) emphasised that to tremendous effect, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). We always need to remember that at the heart of the fuel poverty debate is the human misery and suffering brought about by it. We need to strive with all our might to remove it as a stain on our country in the 21st century; we could do so much better.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who was at the heart of it when fuel poverty issues were first debated many years ago. Indeed, I have been alongside him debating those issues for quite a while myself. He must be grievously disappointed by the glacial progress being made on the elimination of fuel poverty in our country.
The Minister has heard a universal contribution from all Members here this afternoon that the Government must do better. I look forward to the new policies that are coming forward, which I hope will give a clear indication of just how the Government are going to do better, because they are a long way away from closing the gap between ambition and action and putting that into operation. I am sure we will debate the matter on frequent occasions in the future, but I look forward to those strategies. I hope they will be up to the mark in doing what we now know we need to do on fuel poverty in all its aspects. Perhaps from this afternoon’s debate we can bring out a renewed vigour to get on with it.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank all those who have spoken this afternoon. It has been a really powerful and important debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It might be rare to see him and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) standing up together to lobby the Treasury on reducing or removing VAT on insulation and other green products, but who am I to stop such a bonding of those least likely to want to campaign together? It is a fascinating issue, and we should all watch closely and hope that this will be a new match to take on some of the green challenges that we all want to see fixed.
I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for raising the issues that the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness raised. I will make sure that I read that report and look at it in more detail. As I said, Scotland obviously has its own devolved controls over fuel poverty issues, but I recognise, as someone who lives in Northumberland, that the challenges of weather do cause differences, and we have to be conscious of that as we work towards finding those solutions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for being such a great and persuasive advocate for her constituency. She understands clearly and in depth that there are areas in her constituency that need more support. I hope that she will work closely with her local authority on the schemes it can deliver to help insulate homes and make sure that she drives it to greater success.
It is always a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), although we did not hear any calls for city status. His total commitment on this issue is heartening at every level. He has campaigned on it and has driven a change in many Government policies over the years. I hope that he supports the renewed drive and, indeed, supports bringing in the band C requirement as part of our fuel poverty strategy. That will not only drive the short-term ways we can help support families in fuel poverty, but will make sure we will change forever the landscape of our property mapping across the country. Properties in bands D, E and F will be brought up to scratch to ensure that we do that.
We must continue to take action to address the fuel poverty that still exists. As we move towards our 2025 milestone and our ambitious 2030 fuel poverty target, we are very aware of the challenges that remain. By focusing on energy efficiency and delivering 1.6 million households out of fuel poverty, and as we move to those low-carbon heating solutions and net zero by 2050, we have the opportunity to ensure that those on low incomes are not left behind. A fair and affordable transition will be key to protecting those who are in fuel poverty.
The social housing decarbonisation fund will deliver energy-efficient homes. Support such as the home upgrade grant, which is due to begin delivery early next year, with a commitment to a £4 billion successor energy company obligation scheme, will continue to help push forward a reduction in the homes that need to be improved.
For anyone whose questions I have not answered, I will make sure that we do so in writing. I thank everyone for their important and thoughtful contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will suspend briefly for the sanitisation of both Dispatch Boxes, then we will resume with the next debate.
Backbench Business
Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the publication of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, First Do No Harm; further notes the Government’s failure to respond to the recommendations of that review in full; notes the significant discrepancy between the incidence of complication following mesh surgery in the Hospital Episode Statistics and the British Society of Urogynaecology databases, as highlighted in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Project Report, entitled Hospital Episode Statistics as a Source of Information on Safety and Quality in Gynaecology to Support Revalidation; notes that the Government’s plan to publish a retrospective audit to investigate the links between patient-level data to explore outcomes has not been fulfilled; notes that the moratorium on mesh implant procedures should not be lifted until that audit has been undertaken and the true scale of suffering established; notes Ministers’ failure to acknowledge recommendations relating to victims of Primodos; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations for victims of mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos without further delay.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the report of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, entitled “First Do No Harm”. It is that report, and the Government’s response to its nine recommendations, that this debate is intended to address. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Baroness Cumberlege, who chaired the review, and her dedicated team. I am delighted that she is able to be here to listen to the debate.
The publication of the report gave hope to so many women who had felt ignored and belittled for years. Since it was published, Baroness Cumberlege has continued to campaign in the other place for the thousands and thousands of women impacted, and I am proud to be supporting her. I pay tribute to the women personally affected by the medical interventions under investigation and their bravery in sharing their stories. In the words of the report,
“They told their stories with dignity and eloquence, but also with sadness and anger, to highlight common and compelling themes.”
The review examined the hormone pregnancy test Primodos, which was thought to be associated with birth defects and miscarriages; sodium valproate, an effective anti-epileptic drug, which caused physical malformations, autism and developmental delay; and pelvic mesh implants, which have been linked to crippling, life-changing complications. The report had a damning conclusion:
“the system is not safe enough for those taking medications in pregnancy or being treated using new devices and techniques”.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I do not intend to speak, but I am here today because a constituent has written to me. She has suffered horribly from appalling damage as a result of these procedures. I want to thank the hon. Lady sincerely for bringing this to the Floor of the House and allowing us all to be educated—well, those who need educating, like me.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his comments, and I am very pleased that he is able to join the debate.
The report showed that patients were exposed to the risk of harm when they did not need to be. They were affected adversely by poor or indifferent care. They suffered at the hands of clinicians who did not listen or chose not to do so. They were abandoned by a system that failed to recognise its mistakes and correct them at the earliest opportunity.
The systematic silencing of women’s voices, the indifference to their stories and the outright denial of their pain and suffering was a central theme in the findings of the report. That theme has been repeated time and time again when it comes to women’s health. Enough is enough. Today’s motion calls on the Government to implement all nine of the recommendations in the report, and I hope Members across the House will support it.
I am joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh implants, and my comments will obviously focus predominantly on that, but I want to very quickly mention the Epilepsy Society’s campaign “Safe Mum, Safe Baby”, which calls on the Government to fund research into safer epilepsy medication so that babies are not born with preventable diseases.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is right to bring this issue to the fore, and I commend her for that. The Minister will recall that I had a debate on how the mesh is affecting men. I had 400 people in Northern Ireland contact me saying that their problems were the same: it is hard to remove and causes extreme pain, depression, relationship problems, marriage breakdowns and, for some people, unfortunately suicide. Does the hon. Lady agree that, whether the mesh is for women or men, it is detrimental and has harmed many people?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely. One of the points that I will come to later is that people who have had rectopexy and hernia mesh implants have also been badly affected.
The recommendation that I want to focus on is the one that requires immediate action from the Secretary of State to set up an implementation taskforce to oversee the progress of the other eight recommendations, and to offer a timeline for the actions. Unfortunately, the Government declined the recommendation and instead offered the creation of a patient reference group to
“ensure that patients voices are heard”.
With respect, patients’ voices have been heard in the Cumberlege report. We already know that women are not listened to in the healthcare system. We need action to change that, rather than another review kicking the can down the road. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that women’s voices are placed at the centre of their treatment when the patient reference group publishes its report.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Like others, I thank the hon. Lady for securing this vital debate. Does she agree with me that we need to encourage women to speak up and to support them to deal with their own health issues, but that comments made by some in Government recently that it is down to women individually to speak up can be unhelpful? We have to see this through the lens of the institutional challenges that women have faced for decades. Although we need to celebrate our clinicians, we really need to do more to educate them and give them resources and support to ensure women are not treated in the way the hon. Lady is describing.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I agree with her absolutely, which brings me on to the point about the redress agency, which is one of the recommendations in the report that has been rejected. Instead, the Government have said:
“The government and industry have previously established redress schemes without the need for an additional agency.”
That goes to the point that she made, because this puts the burden of redress in entirely the wrong place: on the victims, not on those responsible. Seeking redress requires enormous effort on the part of those who are already suffering, not just financially but emotionally, as was set out in Baroness Cumberlege’s report. It recommends that without waiting for the establishment of a redress agency:
“Separate schemes should be set up for each intervention…to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm”.
Sadly, no such moves have been made, so I would be interested if the Minister gave an indication of the progress on such schemes.
The report also recommends transparency on payments to clinicians, with a UK-style Physician Payments Sunshine Act 2010 to require the mandatory reporting of all payments made to doctors, teaching hospitals, research institutions and charities. The Government’s interim response said that they would “consider” this recommendation, in discussion with other parties, including the General Medical Council. I understand that there are suggestions that this could be done by expanding the voluntary system of reporting, but, as we have seen, voluntary systems simply do not work.
By way of a quick example, a high-profile academic recently admitted that he had failed to declare £100,000 from the manufacturer of one of the types of vaginal mesh implants that he was assessing. He has now published a correction, but this is almost seven years after he first did his report and it came only after a complaint was made about him. A section 60 order in the Health and Care Bill would allow for legislation to cover this, because transparency is vital to patient safety. There should be no opportunities for payments made by industry to introduce bias into prescribing or the scientific literature that is used to inform our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. This report recommended creating a database to record which device was used when, in which person, and what the outcomes were in terms of safety and patient feedback.
The roll-out of the medical device information system has begun, but questions are arising as to what data is being collected. This is really important. To give an indication of that, let me raise the case of Kath, an extremely fit and healthy woman who used to be interested in skydiving. She had mesh implants and afterwards was in such pain that she was unable to move or get out of bad. This completely changed her life forever. However, her procedure was recorded as a success because she no longer had incontinence and that was the measure being looked at. We need to be looking at all patient outcomes when we are recording that data in those data sets.
That brings me on to my next point, which relates to the current moratorium on using mesh, as recommended in the report. Kath has said that there is no way she would ever have had this procedure had she had any indication of the risk of harm. I understand that there is pressure from some of the surgeons to reintroduce mesh, but I do not believe we can do that without fully informed consent, and we can have that only if patients are fully aware of all the risks. They can be fully aware of all the risks only if all the data is collected and recorded accurately. Until that is done, we cannot have informed consent and we should not consider lifting the moratorium on the use of mesh implants.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for joining me to help to secure this debate. I will be speaking later, but I wanted to touch on this specific point about the pressure we are coming under. Does she agree that nothing has changed from a clinical point of view in the past 18 months, yet the clinician pressure is to stop the suspension? Does that not represent the pressure we are under coming from the clinician side of this argument?
Emma Hardy
I completely agree and thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward and championing it from the other side of the House. He correctly says that we need to have all that evidence so that people can give that informed consent.
Finally, the report recommends establishing specialist treatment centres
“to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice”.
Some of these care centres are being established, which is good news, but again there are concerns about the data collection on patient outcomes after mesh removal and not all women are having all their mesh removed—some of this is only a partial removal. Again, what questions are being asked and what data is being collected? I have submitted numerous written parliamentary questions to the Department but have yet to receive a clear answer on exactly what data will be collected.
There are also important questions to be answered on the competence of surgeons to undertake removals. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has a very difficult story on this issue. The Department says that it is for individual trusts to decide which surgeons to use for removals, but I do not share that view. How can it be fair to ask a woman to return to the same surgeon who put the mesh in, causing her all that harm, in order to have it removed? I really think we need to look at this issue again.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The situation is even worse than the hon. Lady suggests, because in some cases these surgeons, who have now been appointed as lead figures in the mesh centres, are the people who not only put the mesh in but then persisted in denying that the mesh was the cause of any of the terrible problems their victims had suffered.
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and completely agree with his point.
We are now one year on from publication of the Cumberlege review. Of course I accept that there has been a pandemic, but there is nothing to stop the Government accepting the recommendations. We would all be quite realistic and understand that the Government can accept the recommendations but that there would have to be a delay in implementing them, because of the pandemic. That would be fine, but they have not. They have implemented only two recommendations, on an apology and on the appointment of a patient safety commissioner.
Given the lack of progress and the concerns that I have outlined, to which I know colleagues here will add further, I urge the Government to reconsider the implementation taskforce. The problems identified by the review are systemic and of long standing and, if unaddressed, will condemn more to a lifetime of suffering. It is essential that they are brought to an end, and to do so the review’s recommendations must all be implemented in full.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this important debate.
I decided that the independent medicines and medical devices safety review should be set up because I was deeply concerned about the impact, which had been raised over many years, of the use of certain medicines and medical devices on women, and in particular the use of pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and hormone pregnancy tests, predominantly Primodos.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend all Members of the House who have campaigned on these issues over the years. I would also like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness Cumberlege for the work she did in chairing the review, and in producing such a no-holds-barred and absolutely-to-the-point review, which made very clear for the Government the problems that had occurred and what needed to be done.
I will also take this opportunity to say to the Minister that I would like to thank the Government for their decision to establish a strategy for women’s health, which I think is important. But that is for the future; what we are talking about now, of course, are problems that occurred in the past but also problems that are still occurring, as we have just heard in relation to mesh, and indeed as with sodium valproate, which I will refer to later.
What was clear to me when these issues were raised with me is that over decades women had suffered, children had suffered and families had suffered, and the impacts are still being felt today. What was also clear was that the voices of patients, of women and of others had been raised and had consistently been ignored. There had been a sort of attitude that said, “There, there. You’re a woman; you just have to put up with it.” The unwillingness to listen and act had occurred under successive Governments, through the Department of Health and various aspects of the national health service.
I have to say to the Minister that sadly such an approach is perhaps not unexpected by Members of the House. I am sure that other Members will, like me, have had constituency cases in which there has been a problem with the treatment an individual received from the NHS, and they want an apology and to know that someone will ensure that it does not happen again to somebody else, but they come up against a brick wall, because the natural inclination is to defend the institution, rather than address the issue that has been raised.
Jim Shannon
Some of the ladies in Northern Ireland who have contacted me want more than apologies. Some of them have not been able to work—they cannot work and will never be able to work—not because of anxiety and depression but because of the physical difficulties they have. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is also about making sure that people have the benefits that the Government can make available? We also need to address the breakdown in their marriages and the help we can give. Those are some of the things that my constituents want to see, as well the things that the right hon. Lady has referred to.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I shall come to the issue of redress in relation to these particular aspects of pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos and other HPTs. I was making the general point that I see constituency cases of individuals where a mistake has been made by the NHS. They want an apology and to know that change is going to take place, but they come up against a brick wall and sometimes find themselves battling and ending up in court to try to get some redress—with all the problems that that creates—because the institution has defended itself, rather than taking the patient’s voice seriously.
Our NHS does amazing work day by day and it has done amazing work during the pandemic, but, sadly, when mistakes are made, it does not always respond in the right way. The report of the independent review made this very clear:
“There is an institutional and professional resistance to changing practice even in the face of mounting safety concerns. There can be a culture of dismissive and arrogant attitudes that only serve to intimidate and confuse. For women there is an added dimension—the widespread and wholly unacceptable labelling of so many symptoms as ‘normal’ and attributable to ‘women’s problems’.”
It went on:
“Mistakes are perpetuated through a culture of denial, a resistance to no-blame learning, and an absence of overall effective accountability.”
It was apt that the report was called “First Do No Harm”; as the noble Baroness Cumberlege said:
“It is a phrase that should serve as a guiding principle, and the starting point, not only for doctors but for all the other component parts of our healthcare system. Too often, we believe it has not.”
Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I am concerned that the Government have not responded to and accepted the recommendations of the review in full. The recommendations were not made lightly; they were made after listening to considerable evidence and hearing the voice of people who had suffered for years as a result of the use of these medicines or medical devices. The report identified where changes needed to be made. Of course responses take time and of course the Department has been dealing with the pandemic, but I hope that the Government are going to respond properly on all the issues raised.
The Government have agreed to set up an independent patient safety commissioner—partly, I have to say, because of the action in the House of Lords in relation to amendments to a Bill—and they are now consulting on the position, but we do not know when the commissioner is going to be in post. The commissioner is important, because it is the commissioner who will enable the user’s experience—the patient’s voice—to be heard. By hearing that voice, it will be possible to detect and stop the use of medicines and medical devices that lead to avoidable harms.
Hannah Bardell
The right hon. Lady has made the point about institutional cultures, defensiveness and the culture of litigation that it feels like we have now got into, particularly in respect of some aspects of the health service. Does she agree that the patient safety commissioner must have teeth and must be able to help us—I think there would be agreement across this House and in the other place on this—to try to move away from that culture so that we can learn from mistakes?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree about the importance of the patient safety commissioner; they have to be able to do the job that is intended and set out for them to do. I know that there will be those who will be concerned that their sponsoring Department is the Department of Health and Social Care. It is natural because this is a health issue, but I hope that the Department will make every effort to ensure that it cannot be accused of trying to water down the role of the independent safety commissioner, because, as we are saying, it is important for the user’s experience to be heard. This is not about trying to get at the Department of Health or the NHS or anything. It is about people who are suffering real-life experiences and impacts as a result of the use of medicines and medical devices; it is about identifying those situations and ensuring that action is taken to stop them happening so that others can be protected.
The issue of redress was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and the hon. Member for—I apologise, because the hon. Gentleman is in the House so frequently, but I have forgotten his constituency—[Interruption.]. Strangford, thank you. The issue was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Government have said that an agency is not needed, yet time and again the only redress for patients is through recourse to the courts. That is expensive and stressful. It is also expensive for the national health service; in 2018-19, the NHS paid £2.4 billion in clinical negligence claims. But redress is about far more than compensation. It is about relating to the real impact that the use of these medicines and medical devices has had on people, such as the need for special education for children who have been affected because their mothers have taken sodium valproate when pregnant. There are many other examples. I urge the Government to look again at that issue.
I also want to raise the issue of the patient’s voice, because this has all been about an unwillingness in the past to listen to the patient’s voice. Setting up the patient reference group was fine, but I understand that it is due to publish findings shortly, and nobody knows whether the patient’s voice is going to be taken into account or how it can be in the future. I urge the Government to ensure that patients are part of the implementation; it is their experience that we are talking about, so it is so important that they are included.
My final point relates to sodium valproate and it partly comes from constituency experience. This medicine has a one in two risk of causing harm to a baby if a woman is taking it while she is, or becomes, pregnant. What lies behind this issue is information and education, but it took a year for the Government to write to women to raise awareness of the risk. I hope that the Government do not think that that is job done, because this is an ongoing issue that has to be addressed. It is not just about providing information to women; it is also about ensuring that their clinicians are well informed when they are prescribing and dealing with their cases.
Women suffered considerably from the use of pelvic mesh, from hormone-based pregnancy tests, predominantly Primodos, and from sodium valproate, but they and their children are still suffering today. At the heart of this situation lay a health system that, in the words of the report, is
“not good enough at spotting trends in practice and outcomes that give rise to safety concerns. Listening to patients is pivotal to that.”
The system did not listen. It saw real pain and debilitation as women’s problems. The service which at its heart has our safety and protection ignored concerns over safety for too many years. The independent report recommends steps for the system to change. I urge the Government to embrace the recommendations in full. That way, we will be on the way to ensuring that we have a system that genuinely first does no harm.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this very important debate. As we have heard, today marks one year since the independent medicines and medical devices safety review was published. I was speaking virtually that day and I have to say that I am thrilled to be able to speak in the Chamber today; thankfully, it is starting to feel a bit more normal. I wholeheartedly thank Baroness Cumberlege and her team for their excellent work; it is great to see her with us today. I also thank the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for commissioning the review in the first place. It was a brave and bold thing to do—and the right thing to do, as she has so often done in this place.
The problems with the medicines and medical devices that the review reports on—Primodos, valproate and vaginal mesh—have been ongoing for much, much longer than just the past year, as we all know. I have had the privilege of working with campaigners over many years on these issues; I pay tribute to Janet Williams, Emma Murphy, Marie Lyon and Kath Sansom, to name just four, for their dedication and expertise. They are normally with us for these debates, and it is sad that they are not able to be here.
I first spoke in this House about surgical mesh implants in October 2017, as shadow Minister for public health—there were always lots of debates in that brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) will know. My mam always likes to see my speeches, so one Saturday, while I was making lunch, I showed her that speech and said “Oh, thank goodness you’ve never had any of this awful mesh put in.”
That was when our world was turned upside down. She said, “No, no, I only had a bit of tape put in a few years ago, before all my troubles started”—the “troubles” she refers to being numerous health problems that appeared one after the other. She had had scans and cameras everywhere, with no diagnosis. Obviously there was no solution that could be found. Does that sound familiar to those who have had constituents with mesh problems get in touch?
Fast-forward three and a half years—coming up to four now—from that first debate, and my mam still has all sorts of complications. She is now in constant pain all the time. She is 76 this year. She has all sorts of autoimmune reactions and she just wants her mesh removed, no matter her age. She was very healthy and had a great life before, and her life now is a shadow of its former self. She wishes constantly, every day, that she had never had it put inside her.
She is not alone. I know that there are tens of thousands of women in exactly the same position, so I support all the recommendations of the excellent Cumberlege review. Recommendation 5 calls for specialist centres to be established, which is excellent; it has happened, they are open and I think some have actually started to do some of their work. But therein lies the issue that I want to specifically mention today—I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) have already raised it, so I am not alone in being concerned.
The issue is that the very surgeons who implanted this awful, life-devastating mesh are in most cases the very same ones now offering to remove it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, after gaslighting women and telling them that their pain was in their head or that they just had to learn to live with it—or to lie back and think of England when they tried to have sex, as was once mentioned in Westminster Hall—they are the very same surgeons these patients, including my mam, are expected to trust again to remove this mesh. That trust is, unsurprisingly, all gone.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady; I really appreciate all the work that she has done on the issue alongside us. To take what she says one step further—she may be coming on to this point—does she agree that the other problem is that the evidence we have had in APPG meetings is that the very same surgeons still think that this is the best cure for women? They are not actually accepting some of the problems that are blatantly obvious.
Mrs Hodgson
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point; I was not moving on to it, so I am glad he has made it. They are very keen to start reimplanting and reusing the mesh; they still say that it is great and that it transforms 90% of women’s lives. For the 90% whose body can tolerate it, that is great, but for the 10% who cannot, it devastates their lives. It transforms their lives in a devastating way; in many cases it can leave them crippled and unable to work.
Not all these women are of pensionable age like my mam, who is 76 this year. Some are still of working age and have all the problems associated with trying to get recognition in the benefits system when so little is still known, not just by GPs but by the Department for Work and Pensions people who are dealing with them. The last thing we want to do is create more victims of this terrible medical device. Mesh-injured women are between a rock and a hard place: either they have their mesh removed by the very same surgeon who implemented the mesh, often—in the case of my mam as well—after it was widely known that it was devastating some women’s health, or they do not have it removed at all. This should never be a choice, so I call on the Minister to work with NHS England to reconsider that and put patients first by giving them a genuine choice about where they go for their mesh removal and who removes it. There are only eight of these centres, so this is not often as easy as saying, “Oh well, you can go to Manchester or London,” as was said to my mam; obviously, I will bend over backwards to enable that to happen, but some women just will not have the wherewithal. There must be a way for surgeons from other parts of the country to travel to where those women are, so that they do not have to face and deal with the surgeon who put the mesh in them.
I want to briefly mention valproate and Primodos. Since the review was published a year ago, very sadly 10 members of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests have died, still suffering with the enormous guilt of feeling, even though it was not their fault, inadvertently responsible for the damage to their babies. This has been an ongoing battle for them since 1978 and we have heard and will hear further this afternoon how devastating this drug has been for those who took it in all innocence, with full trust in their doctors to do them no harm.
On valproate, I have huge respect for the noble Lord O’Shaughnessy. When he was the Health Minister responsible he put in train excellent guidance and safeguards and tried to help more than anyone before him, yet shockingly still around 400 babies are born per year who have been exposed to valproate—even now, after all we know and all that the noble Lord put in train. That is truly shocking. Some 15,000 women in England alone are prescribed valproate in their child-bearing years with the majority still not receiving the pregnancy prevention programme or given a change of medication should they seek or want to become pregnant. This is without even beginning to estimate the additional tragedies of stillbirths, miscarriages or terminations that are due and necessary because of valproate.
This Minister’s lasting legacy could be to right these historical wrongs once and for all. We must ensure that everyone in the healthcare system is protected and treated with care, and when there are failings, as will happen—they cannot all be prevented, much as we would like it to be so—the Government must take action to ensure that those harmed are treated with respect and given proper healthcare and restorative surgery where possible and are, if they can be, properly compensated. But mostly we need to ensure that this sort of harm from medicines and medical devices never happens again.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
What an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson); I remember from my time as Health Secretary what an incredibly powerful and passionate campaigner she was on all health issues, and she has done an enormous amount for families up and down the country through her campaigning in this place. I also thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for her powerful comments and for securing this debate alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke); both are formidable campaigners. I also particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for encouraging me to commission this review as Health Secretary. It was the right thing to do, and it reminded me of another great decision she made: to commission an independent investigation into the contaminated blood scandal, which was long overdue and which Prime Ministers prior to her had ducked. That was again an example of someone being prepared to do the right thing.
We would not be here if it were not for the hard work and dedication of my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege. When I asked her to carry out this review in February 2018, neither of us had any idea quite what a huge job it would be. She set about the task with enormous energy and determination, and with the integrity to know that the job could not and would not be done properly until she had heard the stories of families up and down the country who had been damaged by what went wrong. I thank her, Sir Cyril Chantler and the entire team for their work and the clarity that they have brought to these difficult issues.
There has been the most terrible oversight of women’s medicine and medical devices. Until we implement the recommendations in the report, there will not be just a lack of justice, but also a risk of repeat.
I commend the Minister, who I know is personally deeply committed to patient safety. I know that, as a Minister, it is not always easy to get your way and to do all the things that you would like to do, because other people in the system overrule you. I know her heart is in the right place. I thank her for the fact that we have legislated for a Patient Safety Commissioner.
I understand the Government’s argument that it is not necessary to have an independent redress agency to implement a redress scheme, but we still do not have a redress scheme in this case. The risk of not having an agency is that every time we want to set up a scheme, there must be negotiations with the Treasury and the whole machinery of government combines to try to slow the process down. If we are to have justice in the future, we do not want that to happen.
On sodium valproate, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I remind the House that 400 babies are born every year to women on valproate. Half of those babies are harmed. As the hon. Lady rightly said, that is an underestimate because it does not include any stillbirths, miscarriages and terminations that may be associated with valproate.
The NHS took nearly a year to write to all the women of childbearing age on valproate, to warn them of the risks. I can understand why it took so long in the year that we have just had with the pandemic, but I am more concerned that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency was approached as early as 2013 with the same issues. That identifies that we have a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.
I am also concerned that the letter that went out from the NHS simply had a warning about the dangers of valproate. Why did it not announce a ban on the routine prescription of valproate, saying that in future, it could only be prescribed through specialist channels, where we can absolutely make sure that the checks are in place to make sure that babies will not be harmed?
I am very concerned that the letter contains an ambition to halve the number of pregnant women on valproate by 2023. I cannot understand why we would just want to halve the number of pregnant women on valproate, when that would mean that 100 babies will continue to be born harmed every year. There can be no other proper ambition than to eliminate the number of babies born harmed by valproate and we need a plan to do that. It feels too much like that saying by Aristotle that the problem is not aiming too high and missing, but aiming too low and hitting. In this case, we must be aiming to prevent all harm to babies and to mothers.
My final point echoes many comments made by other hon. Members this afternoon. This is of course about justice, but it is also about learning. This time, it was valproate, Primodos and mesh. Next time, it will be different medicines and medical devices. I say to the Minister, only because I have been in exactly the same position as she is now on many, many occasions, that the only thing to do in this situation is to put your hand on your heart and ask yourself honestly and searchingly, “Am I absolutely sure that, having done what I am going to do, this can never happen again?” Until these nine recommendations are implemented, we will not be able to have the certainty that these mistakes will not be repeated. I think we need more pace and more ambition from the Government and I hope that is what we will hear when she makes her comments later.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in such an important debate. I congratulate, again, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). It is rare in these political times that this House is united on an issue, but it is united today, more than I have seen it for some time. I hope to speak directly for a moment to those out there who are watching who have been affected by hormone pregnancy drugs such as Primodos, like my constituents Kirsteen and Wilma Ord, or sodium valproate or vaginal mesh, or mesh that is used in men: this House is united and there are Members in this place who will not give up the fight to make sure that you get justice and redress.
I want to talk specifically about families affected by Primodos. I pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege and I am very pleased that she is here today. She and her team did an incredible job on her review, “First Do No Harm”. I pay testament to the bravery, dedication and passion of the Primodos campaigners, led by Marie Lyon. She is the personification of persistence and I know that she will be watching, because it is unimaginable that families and victims of Primodos had been subjected not only to the harm of the drug, but years and years—decades—of waiting and campaigning. We have to recognise, as Members including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) did, that it is so damaging that these things can take so long. They are corrosive and debilitating—I have seen that in my constituents.
Time and again, we see families treated this way, whether they are the victims of thalidomide, contaminated blood, the families of Hillsborough or now the victims of Primodos, sodium valproate and medical mesh. There have been years of inquiries and public money is being spent for those who have suffered and are still suffering, and very often, they do not get justice or have to wait for decades, or they and their family have died before they have the truth. It is a culture of kicking the can down the road and it is toxic.
One key thing, particularly in relation to Primodos, is the guilt that those women live with—that they somehow were responsible, and have been told by doctors that they were responsible, for the harm of their own child, which we all know is absolutely incorrect and not true. I hope that any family, any victim and any woman affected, particularly by Primodos or, indeed, sodium valproate or mesh, know that it is not your fault. You did not do anything wrong.
The Cumberlege review was a huge step forward in recognising the unnecessary and colossal harm inflicted on victims of the Primodos drug. The review was supposed to mean that victims had finally been heard and believed and I think that many, many felt that they had been. After it was published, the Conservative Government made a very welcome and long overdue formal apology to victims, and I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, for their part in the work that they have done in that area.
However, we need to be reminded, and those now in power need to be reminded, that an apology means nothing if the action to rectify those issues and make sure they cannot happen again does not happen. Only two of Baroness Cumberlege’s nine recommendations have been implemented. Given that these families—the Primodos victims—have waited almost 60 years, including my constituent Wilma Ord and her daughter Kirsteen, they cannot be forced to wait any longer, surely. An apology and a patient safety commissioner is a big step forward. In Scotland, we have also brought forward a review and intend to bring forward those plans, and I am sure that we will continue to work with this Government and the Health Secretary to make sure that we do all we can in Scotland.
The injustice continues, however, because the families have not received the compensation or lifetime care that was rightly awarded to thalidomide victims earlier this year. Like thalidomide victims, Primodos survivors face constant uncertainty about the cost of their care as they get older. Many surviving victims are now in their forties and fifties, and they are facing physical challenges with their bodies. Many have relied on care from their parents who are now getting older and facing their own challenges. That is truly heartbreaking.
My constituent Wilma Ord has spoken very candidly to me about the burden she feels, and the fears she has for her daughter as she gets later into her life and may not be able to cope. She worries about what will happen when she has gone. She just wants to know that her daughter will have the support she needs. I do not think that that is very much to ask. Financial support for these families is the least they should be offered. That should just be the starting point in addressing the harm that was done to them. Thalidomide campaigners did not have to obtain proof of a causal link in their fight for justice and rightly so, so why is there a higher bar set for Primodos victims before the Government will provide equal treatment? I hope the Health Secretary can answer that question.
The UK Government repeatedly cites—we have not spoken about this yet, I do not think—the 2017 expert working group report. Its failings have been widely acknowledged. Having worked closely with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has done a huge amount on this issue, and campaigner Marie Lyon who sat on that group, we know the expert working group was not only a whitewash but a disgraceful waste of public money. There are serious questions around the process and independence of that report, but we want to move forward.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady mentions the expert working group’s report, which was, as she rightly says, universally panned in this Chamber. The interesting thing is that the Cumberlege review took place after the expert working group. It had a look at the report and also came to the conclusion that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
Hannah Bardell
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes an excellent point. We know there were serious questions around the process and the independence of the report. I remember going with her across the road to the conference centre where it was being launched, and being denied entry. Two democratically elected Members of Parliament working for our constituents were refused entry to the launch of a report funded by public money. It was an absolute scandal.
The evidence uncovered by Sky News reporter Jason Farrell suggested that significant sections of the original draft were changed before publication, including the omission of a graph showing that the majority of historical studies found an association between the drug and malformations. In short, evidence was deliberately omitted and censored, and Government money was spent on that. You know the worst of it? Families and victims were strung along for months and months and months only to be let down. That can never happen again.
If the Government seek to rebuild trust after such devastating scandals as Primodos, they must give the public and most of all the victims a fair and open process. That cannot be achieved, however, if it relies on a report and findings that are not fit for purpose. Everybody in the House knows that and the public know that. How many times are we going to see public money spent on placating people, while report after review gathers dust on a shelf rather than action being taken? Processes have to be open and robust. When they are and when reports such as Baroness Cumberlege’s report are produced, they have to be put into action. It is vital that that now happens and that we find a way forward for Primodos victims, and for the victims of sodium valproate and mesh.
All the failings in the system that led to this awful situation are in the past and cannot be undone, but we have to be sure that the public have confidence not just in their medical practitioners, who have done a phenomenal job through covid, but in the processes and in our ability as parliamentarians to do our job. Now, in 2021, why are the Government continuing to perpetuate that wrong? They are compounding the pain and suffering that the families have endured at the hands of the state’s failure to regulate private pharmaceutical companies properly. It feels very much like profit over people. We do not want to hear, and I know that my constituents do not want to hear, “We’re in litigation; we’re engaged in a legal process.” That is all very well, but the Government have a duty to implement the recommendations of the report that they commissioned.
All I would say to the Minister and the Health Secretary is that they have the opportunity to right a wrong. Let us not continue down the road of defensiveness and turning our back on those victims who have waited decades—literally lifetimes—to get answers and justice. Ministers should do the right thing and give them the justice and the recompense that they deserve.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
May I, too, commend the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate?
My constituent Mrs Jennifer Meakin was pregnant with her third child, Daniel, when she was prescribed Primodos as a pregnancy test. Daniel was born on 14 September 1974, with severe birth defects. He had an occipital swelling containing brain cells and fluid, which had leaked out when the neural tube was developing, and he was categorised as spina bifida. Daniel has undergone five major brain operations. By any standard, he is severely disabled. Equally, by any standard, the challenges experienced by the Meakin family since his birth over 47 years ago have been enormous.
Hormone pregnancy tests first came on to the market in the early 1960s, and approximately 1 million prescriptions were dispensed. As early as 1967, warnings were made available to the Committee on Safety of Drugs that such tests were unreliable, might cause neural tube defects of the sort that afflicted Daniel, and could precipitate an early abortion. However, a 1967 CSD press release reported:
“The consensus of expert opinion is that there is no scientific evidence to support the view that the hormones used in pregnancy tests can cause congenital malformations.”
The IMMDS report comments on that very forthrightly, stating:
“Given the concerns raised, the non-essential nature of HPTs and the provision of risk-free alternative tests…the CSD…should have recommended the withdrawal of the indication for use as a pregnancy test in 1967.”
However, it was not until June 1975 that a general warning was issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the statutory successor to the CSD, about the possible association between hormone pregnancy tests and an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities, with an explicit recommendation that doctors should not prescribe hormonal preparations for pregnancy tests. That was some eight years after concerns about the tests were first raised and eight years after the date when, according to the report, the CSD should have recommended that Primodos should not be used as a pregnancy test—and sadly, of course, it was after Mrs Meakin was prescribed the drug for that purpose.
The report makes two specific recommendations in relation to Primodos, which I strongly endorse: first, the establishment of specialist centres for all families adversely affected by medicines taken in pregnancy, to provide integrated medical and social care in one place; and secondly, an ex gratia scheme, to provide discretionary payments. Families who have been afflicted by this scandal for half a century need all the support that they can get. It is a tribute to their persistence and indefatigability that they have pursued their campaign for so long. The report rightly observes that, although causal association has not yet been established, families such as the Meakins have suffered stress, anxiety, psychological harm and the general toll of fighting for recognition. They have, in short, put up with almost unbearable adversity.
The Government did the right thing recently when they confirmed a commitment to lifetime support for the thalidomide victims. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government would, similarly, be doing the right thing now if they were to establish a support scheme for the families affected by Primodos. I strongly urge them to do so.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible.
I want to talk about sodium valproate and the impact it has had on so many people, including so many children of women who were taking that drug, and I want to talk about my constituent Bethany Dodgson, a young woman affected by foetal valproate syndrome. She speaks up on this issue, and she tells me about her difficulties and the more serious difficulties experienced by her brother every day, as well as about her role as a carer in her family and how they have to live with the consequences of foetal valproate syndrome. I also want to pay tribute to Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from INFACT—the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust—who have done so much to campaign on this issue, and to all those other women and other people who have campaigned on this issue.
It is really scandalous that we still have children being affected by foetal valproate syndrome today because their mothers were not aware of the risk of taking sodium valproate. People have campaigned, as Emma and Janet have campaigned, and they have been through records and talked to an endless number of people to try to ensure that women are made aware of the risks of taking sodium valproate, but still we see people being harmed. One year on from the Cumberlege report, “First Do No Harm”, what we have seen on this issue is one letter sent in the last few weeks to warn women of the risk. There have been attempts in previous years, with greater or lesser success, to ensure that doctors were aware and warned their patients, but much more needs to be done actively to ensure that no more children are harmed from their mothers taking sodium valproate.
I would like to talk a bit, as others have, about the recommendations of Baroness Cumberlege’s report “First Do No Harm”. The first thing is the patient safety commissioner, which has been accepted. I am aware that there is movement, but still we have further delays. We have a consultation on the role, and we have extended delays. This is a really significant and important role for the future, and I would urge the Minister and the Government to act swiftly to ensure that the patient safety commissioner is in place.
Secondly, I want to talk about having a redress agency. Going to the law is no answer for the people who have suffered from any of these syndromes. In itself, that would be further torture and a trial on top of what they already have experienced. I endorse exactly what Baroness Cumberlege said in her report: there must be an independent redress agency to stop the pain of people having to keep on fighting—fighting in law—for their rights. I hope the Government and the Minister will be able to accept that, and then individual schemes for each condition can be set up for redress. These people have already had to live for years with their views not being heard, living with the physical consequences for either themselves or their family of the drugs or treatments they have had. Please can we get on and set up this agency now? It is really vital for those people. They do not deserve to have to fight in a different place to achieve that redress, so I hope the Government will look at that.
Then there is the patient reference group. Although it has been set up, there are concerns that there is not sufficient continuing patient involvement in the work that has to go forward. I urge the Minister again to look at that, and to agree with patient groups how they can be involved in future and how we can learn the lessons about what happened to them as we go forward so that this cannot happen again.
Let us be clear: we are talking about a medical issue in medical terms, but this is a women’s issue. It is an issue of women not being listened to and their concerns not being heard, and of action not being taken. Frankly, it is just not good enough. We certainly need to learn the lessons going forward. The Government must act now and we must find a way to prevent further harm to women. As we develop and consult on the women’s health strategy, we need to make sure that we are learning these lessons and the lessons of so many other cases where the voices of women have not been heard and listened to effectively. The title of the Cumberlege report is “First Do No Harm”. It is vital that this principle is looked at when we consider the women’s health strategy.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate in my name and that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
When the hon. Lady and I met to discuss the progress that may or may not have been made, we felt it was important to hold this debate today because it is one year since the publication of the report. Everybody in this House, and I am sure a lot of people around the country, understands that the past year has created a set of circumstances that was always going to put some aspects on the back burner and not move them forward. So today’s debate is not designed to criticise and have a go at the Government—I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and the Department—but merely to say, “Please don’t forget about this report.” It is one of the most important reports on health matters that has come before this House in many years.
What is important today is that none of us loses sight of the people we are talking about. Hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have already raised issues relating to the people themselves—real stories about real people. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has done enormous amounts of work on this and speaks with passion and from the heart of the effect it had personally on her family and her mother. I can only wish her and her family the best and hope that those matters can be resolved.
This first came to my attention when a constituent came to see me. I know that some hon. and right hon. Members will have heard this story before—in fact, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West touched on it—but it is worth telling again. The constituent was a very, very brave lady. She was in her 40s. She had had a child. She was a physiotherapist for the NHS. She was fit and healthy. She stood in front of me and could not sit down. She was having to bend her body into a position to feel as comfortable as she could. She sweated throughout the entire surgery because she was in crippling agony.
I knew nothing about this subject when my constituent came to see me and explained what had happened. What was even more terrifying was that it was an operation she never needed. She had had her child. She continued to have a full, loving and sexual relationship with her husband. But every now and again she had some urinary leakage, and she was told, “Don’t worry, we’ve got a cure for that. It’s a great cure. We can put some mesh inside you. We’ve done it for years. You’ll be fixed and there’ll be no problem.” She went ahead and had the operation done.
About eight years later, things started to go wrong. The fundamental problem is the time between having the operation and problems becoming apparent. That is why the recommendation of a proper database is so very important. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, inserting the mesh is being recorded as a successful operation, but what happens afterwards is not recorded. To be blunt, thalidomide was successful in what it was supposed to do because it stopped morning sickness. Nine months later, the consequences were horrific. We do not class that as a successful drug that was administered. Indeed, we could talk about other drugs today, such as sodium valproate and Primodos, which raise a very important point in relation to this report. However, I am going to focus on the vaginal mesh issues.
One reason why I will focus on vaginal mesh is that my jaw hit the floor at some of the stories that my constituent told me. First, let me get rather graphic, because I think it is important. She described to me how during sexual intercourse, her husband’s penis was sliced. That is not a successful operation in anybody’s book. She then went through several operations, where, to be blunt, she was butchered to the point where she has no sexual stimulation whatever. She was told, “On the bright side, you now have a designer vagina.”
In what circumstances does anybody feel it is appropriate to comment on the perceived attractiveness of somebody’s genitalia, especially when they are suffering the pain and agony that my constituent is going through? I am afraid that that comment alone shows the arrogance of clinicians that we are up against with this issue. It is appalling, and it is one of the reasons why, as I said to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, and indeed to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, we have to push back against clinicians saying, “We want to stop the suspension of the use of mesh because it works in so many circumstances.” I am sorry, but there is too much information out there about patients simply not being listened to.
It took two and a half years for Baroness Cumberlege to put the report together. The review went around the country. Indeed, the constituent I am speaking about sat and spoke at a table with my noble Friend. She said to me afterwards, “It is fantastic. I was really listened to.” Normally when a Government set up an inquiry, you think, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, they will take some hearings and everything else”, and you get, “You’re my Member of Parliament, can you feed in?”, and so on. She said to me afterwards, “I was really listened to.”
When that report came out, women felt that they had finally been listened to and things were moving forward. I have to say that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), performed brilliantly that day when she stood at the Dispatch Box and first of all issued the apology. My constituent said to me she had nothing but praise for the Minister. I hope the Minister knows that the comments I am making today are in no way directed towards her; they are more directed towards what is going on in the NHS and the clinicians. Obviously the driver of this debate today is making sure, as we come out of this global pandemic and all the strains that have been put on the health service, that we reinvigorate these reports and say that they must, must, must be at the forefront of what happens.
I am afraid there is a pattern forming. One of the things that struck me when we had the debate about vaginal mesh in Westminster Hall, which I believe was around 2017, was when I described what I have just described to the House about my constituent’s sex life. In that debate—it is in Hansard—I used the word “clitoris”. It is incredible how much notice was taken of what I had said because a man used that word. I am afraid there is a blunt truth to this debate: it appears to be that only when men talk about women’s issues do people perk up and listen. It seems to me that there appears to be a huge gender blindness in the NHS to how it approaches the health issues of women.
It simply cannot be right that a woman goes time and time again to a doctor and is just dismissed out of hand. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) clearly outlined in her speech, we hear, “There, there. You will get over it.” I have heard that so many times.
Today’s debate does not include endometriosis—that is a different debate, but many in the House will know that I feel very passionate about it, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle works very hard on it alongside me. To deviate for one minute, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, endometriosis is a crippling disease that affects 10% of women in this country, yet there is still an eight to 10-year diagnosis period before anything is done. That again shows the problem. Why are women not being listened to? Why does it take a male Member of Parliament to say these things and get noticed? It is not good enough. The reality is that the recommendations in Baroness Cumberlege’s review need to be implemented.
As I bring my comments to a close, I want to focus on the issue of redress. Redress is not about compensation culture. It is about the fact that my constituent— a healthy and active woman in her 40s who was a physiotherapist and worked for the NHS—as a result of an operation she never asked for, has seen her marriage break down, her career disappear and her life destroyed. The destroying of her life has meant that she can no longer operate as a physiotherapist. She physically cannot do the job. To a certain extent, she has had sick pay and has been looked after, but that is not the point. The point is that the NHS did the operation, said it was all fine and ignored her. She had to take out a loan and go privately to have the mesh removed because of the waiting list. It got to the point where, after she had the operation and was still not getting better, she had further scans that revealed that the mesh had intruded into her bones. Someone commented, “It’s like trying to remove hair from a piece of chewing gum.”
My constituent cannot work. She will never, ever return to the life that she had. Not to mention the breakdown of her marriage, she will never return to the profession that she trained for. She has a caring attitude. She always points out to me, “Alec, you’re too fat. Your knees are going to collapse. I see it all the time.” In fact, I bumped into her in Wetherby market square about two weeks ago, and she said, “Well, at least you’ve listened and lost a bit of weight, but there is still some way to go.”
My constituent was part of the caring profession. That is who she is, but she cannot work again. That is why redress is important. It is important that we are able to look after the people the NHS damaged. She did not need the operation and was damaged. This is not about compensation culture; it is about looking after such people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, the NHS is an all-encompassing caring body and society. We cannot just pick out parts of it and say, “That was the care, but now we are going to ignore you.” We either believe in what it was set up for and what it is meant to do or we do not; it is as simple and black and white as that.
I believe that everybody in this House believes that; I certainly know that my hon. Friend the Minister does. I read her comments in the Daily Mail this week about women’s pain being ignored and about the idea that women can just accept a bit of pain—I think it was about the implanting of the contraceptive coil. It is high time that we start to recognise the institutional picture that that paints. The first step, and the reason why I wanted to speak in this debate—I know my hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely dedicated to these causes—is to bring this as high as we can in the public spotlight. We must move as quickly as we can to implement the nine recommendations, because we are destroying people’s lives. We have destroyed people’s lives, and although we will never rectify the situation, we have a responsibility as a society to do everything we can to support the people who have suffered.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I wish to speak about the devastating effect that the drug Primodos had on countless families, including my constituent, Nan McGradie, and her daughter, Michelle.
The hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos was taken by women in the 1960s and 1970s to test for pregnancy. There was considerable evidence that women who took the drug prescribed by their general practitioner and were pregnant at that time gave birth to babies with serious birth defects including deformities, disabilities, missing limbs, cleft palates, brain damage and damage to internal organs, and in some cases miscarried or had stillbirths. The surviving victims of Primodos are now in their 40s and 50s and many face a host of new problems as their bodies continue to suffer. Many have died prematurely.
Despite the serious concerns raised by paediatrician Dr Isabel Gal in 1967 indicating the possible dangers of Primodos, no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years later. The Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Committee on Safety of Drugs were the Government drug vigilance authorities at that time. Those committees were set up specifically to ensure that nothing like the previous thalidomide tragedy could ever happen again. There is strong and compelling evidence of systematic regulatory failures demonstrating that the committees tasked with safeguarding the health of pregnant women failed in their duty of care.
I want to briefly highlight the case of my constituent Nan McGradie and her daughter Michelle. In 1975, Mrs McGradie was a recently married, healthy young woman. Feeling sick and suspecting she may be pregnant she went to her doctor for a pregnancy test expecting, as was normal at the time, to have a urine test. Instead her doctor prescribed her two Primodos tablets. It was subsequently confirmed that Mrs McGradie was about seven or eight weeks pregnant at that time—incidentally, around the time that a foetus in a womb develops a diaphragm. At the time, in 1975, Primodos had already been banned for use as a pregnancy test for five years in Norway and Sweden.
Mrs McGradie had a totally uneventful pregnancy during which she neither smoked nor drank, and on 20 August 1975 her daughter Michelle was born. It was discovered immediately that Michelle had been born with a hole in her diaphragm, which had allowed her bowel and spleen and part of her liver and kidneys to be forced into her chest cavity, crushing her lung. Michelle was not expected to live, but through the skills of our national health service she survived and is now aged 45.
Throughout her life Michelle has endured numerous operations and surgeries and long, long periods of hospitalisation and has suffered severe health issues including breathing difficulties, a weakened immune system, numerous bowel obstructions and inflammatory bowel infections, and has been unable to conceive children. The effects of these debilitating physical, psychological and medical extremely challenging health conditions suffered by Michelle and her parents for the last 45 years just cannot be adequately described in words.
Michelle was born in 1975, and at that time Mrs McGradie was unaware that Primodos, the drug she had been given to test for pregnancy, had been associated with birth defects for at least eight years, but some two and a half years later, in 1978, she read an article in the press which reported on a number of cases linking birth defects to the drug, including internal organ damage similar to that suffered by her daughter. Since that time, Mrs McGradie has, along with many other women, been fighting the injustice that no one has been held responsible for the damage caused to so many lives through the prescribing of Primodos.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her leadership and thank her for initiating the independent medicines and medical devices safety review overseen by Baroness Cumberlege, and I thank Baroness Cumberlege and her team for their hard work. The review was instructed to consider the regulation of the hormone pregnancy test, Primodos, and the other medical products debated today. One of the report’s conclusions is that Primodos should have been withdrawn from the market in 1967 after the first substantial, and very significant, report by Dr Gal. However, the Government refuse to accept responsibility for the effects of Primodos without appropriate causal association, yet they admitted later in a Sky TV interview and to the independent medicines and medical devices safety review team that they did find a possible association.
There was a moral duty on the Government representatives on the Committee on Safety of Medicines to protect patients at that time, but they failed in their duty of care by suppressing evidence of harm caused by the drug. The Government continue to deny and suppress the evidence even today, while supporting the flawed conclusions of the 2017 expert working group report. The damage to individual lives and families caused by Primodos, fuelled by successive Governments’ lack of action and failure to prevent this, is immeasurable. This could be a far greater tragedy even than thalidomide.
I welcome the £40 million provided by the Chancellor in the last Budget for the ongoing care of families affected by thalidomide, but there can be no justifiable reason to deny the victims of Primodos the closure, support and justice they so clearly deserve. The Government now have an opportunity to right a tragic historical wrong, and I urge them to implement the independent medicines and medical devices safety review’s recommendations in full and without further delay.
Finally, on behalf of the Primodos children and their families, I pay tribute to Mrs Marie Lyon, the chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, for her tireless campaigning for over 40 years, and to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests, for her exceptional support for the campaign.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I must say it is quite hard to speak unemotionally after hearing the tragic story that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) has relayed to the House. How much more difficult must it have been for Baroness Cumberlege to hear dozens, if not hundreds, of such stories of individual human suffering? She came up with a truly magnificent report and the House of Commons had what I thought was one of its best days for a long time when we discussed it, in no small measure due to the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) and her response to the report. We would all have felt quite justified in thinking that, at last, there was real light at the end of this horrible, terrible, awful tunnel, but it does not seem that we have got to the end of it yet.
I took from Baroness Cumberlege’s report one particular area of hope, and that was the establishment of the specialised mesh centres, and I wish to focus in my contribution on three questions. First, are the mesh centres truly dedicated and comprehensive one-stop shops offering all the types of treatment likely to be needed and all the types of investigation likely to be required, if not under one roof, then at least within a single footprint, or are they merely specialists hubs in name only?
Secondly, there is another problem related to the centres. Are we seeing a situation in which surgeons who could have been described as mesh problem deniers are now reinventing themselves as mesh problem remediators? I do not think they are qualified to hold that role. I fear that there is an attitude of mind that says, “Well, it’s not that easy to find people who specialise in this area, and therefore, even though these are the people who put the mesh in, maybe they are the people who are best qualified to take the mesh out.” I absolutely refute that. Not only did those people put the mesh in, but when the patients came along time and again to say what terrible problems they were suffering, those were the people who refused to listen to them. They were the people who, in some cases, insisted on putting more mesh in, and they were the people who, in other cases, refused to let the patients have a referral to figures such as Miss Sohier Elneil in London or Professor Hashim Hashim in Bristol, who are—or were at that time—the true, and possibly the only, specialists in mesh removal.
When I was thinking about what to say in the light of what had gone before, I was debating whether I should use the word “butchered”, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) did use it in his most powerful speech and I will use it as well. The idea that someone who has butchered your body is an appropriate person for you to go back to, after all that, and that they could then say they are going to take the mesh out, when that person may well have stood in the way of your perhaps going to see Miss Elneil or Professor Hashim, who could have done something for you, is unconscionable.
My third question is: what research is being undertaken on new methods of safe removal? If indeed it is the case that an argument is going to be made that there might be some future use for mesh in safer ways, what research is being done to see whether or not something could be developed that would not run the risks of this disaster?
I shall say something very fanciful now, and it is probably nonsense, but the thought occurs to me, hearing about the way in which the flesh grows around the mesh, the mesh fractures and it becomes so very difficult to remove: has anybody ever thought that it might be possible to develop a future type of mesh, if this is not possible with the mesh that has already been put inside people, that might conceivably be harmlessly dissolved within the body if something went wrong, by the addition some sort of chemical? That may be absolute nonsense, but the point is that unless specialist research is carried out, this sort of botching and butchery is going to continue.
As a result of the three constituency cases that I originally cited in a debate on—it is hard to believe that it is more than three years ago—19 April 2018, I have received certain amounts of information and concerns from Kath Sansom, who does such wonderful work with the Sling the Mesh group. I conveyed a message to her and basically said, “If you were standing up in this place today, what points would you like to put over?” She said:
“The debate is calling for all Cumberlege recommendations to be implemented without further delay, including financial redress for women and sweeping reform of the healthcare and regulation framework. Women are losing hope that they have been properly listened to. They need urgent financial redress for the many losses they have suffered. They want to know also when they go to a specialist centre that it is not a postcode lottery of care. To date the specialist centres are special in name only.”
In other words, is there really a new centre, or are people being sent from pillar to post for all the different parts of the investigations and having to wait months between each particular appointment for each particular type of investigation?
Kath also said:
“There has been no national training programme and no agreed way to measure success—they haven’t even agreed on outcome logging measures to standardise the data capture.”
She also made the point, which I think I have made strongly enough, about some of the centres
“being run by pro mesh surgeons who have denied mesh is a problem”.
Alec Shelbrooke
I said this in my speech, but it is worth emphasising again. We are talking about what needs to be done and what is happening, but we must also come back to people; as my right hon. Friend says, people are very important. Women are killing themselves. They are killing themselves. Look at the suicide rates for women with mesh problems and endometriosis. Women go through crippling pain, and dozens a year are taking their own lives. Does that not make the point that my right hon. Friend is making—that we have to move more quickly on this?
Dr Lewis
It totally does. I shall share a little something with the House. Although it does not compare with the agony of what these women are going through, I lost a year and a half of my life when I was given some inappropriate treatment that resulted in my being unable to read for a year and a half during my early 20s. What really made it worse was the knowledge that, if I had not asked for a particular treatment to try to improve my tired eyes because I was studying, none of it need have happened. How much worse must it be for these women, many of whom are not only undergoing all this suffering, but are undergoing it because they were told it was a minor procedure and they thought, “Oh, well—maybe I will have it, then.” If only they had known, they would never have gone within a mile of it. They must be saying that, over and over again. To expect them to go back to the same surgeons who did not tell them what the consequences could be is inhumane and totally unrealistic.
The issue of some people having a financial interest in promoting certain products has been touched on. We are obliged to declare our interests in this House and perhaps something like the Physician Payments Sunshine Act would be the equivalent for people in this context.
Finally, Kath draws attention to what she calls a black hole in official statistics. She says, for example, that according to hospital statistics, in the year 2008-09, 1,038 women were readmitted to hospital with problems within 30 days of a mesh sling having been implanted. In comparison, data derived from surgeons says that only 104 women were admitted to hospital—that is something like 10% of the total. Some 934 women have somehow gone missing from the surgeons’ data.
These are strange and disturbing features. This House has shown itself at its best in condemning what happened. The Government need to build on that and put in place the measures recommended by the report to make it far less likely that it could happen again.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) [V]
As I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on valproate and other anti-epileptic drugs in pregnancy, my comments are on that issue. However, I just want to note the harm done, the hurt caused and the justice needed for victims of surgical mesh and Primodos, who are in a similar position to those who have been harmed by sodium valproate.
One of the common threads that runs through all three campaigns is the way in which, more often than not, it is women who are the victims and it is women’s concerns that have been dismissed. Justice, frustratingly, always seems just out of reach.
One year on from the report’s publication, we really are not much further forward when it comes to sodium valproate. NHS England wrote recently to all women and girls aged 12 to 55 who are currently prescribed sodium valproate, reminding them of the risks of taking it while pregnant. That is a step in the right direction, but it has taken a year. One letter is not going to resolve the issue. The Government really must explain what further action will be taken and over what timescale.
Baroness Cumberlege’s report included nine general recommendations, in addition to a number of specific recommendations on sodium valproate. In January, the Minister provided the Government’s initial response to the recommendations. However, she only responded to the general recommendations and not the specific recommendations on sodium valproate. The Government have since stated on a number of occasions that they will respond in full later this year. Do the Government still plan to make a full response this year and will they address the report’s specific recommendations on sodium valproate?
I have a few brief comments about recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the report, before turning to the specific recommendations on sodium valproate. I would appreciate an update from the Minister.
Recommendation 3, which is for a new independent redress agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices, has not been implemented, and it appears that the Government are unwilling to do so. May I express how hugely disappointing that is, given the avoidable harm that so many families have experienced? The case for an independent redress agency remains strong. Other countries have successfully set up an agency without such a mechanism, and people who have suffered avoidable harm following healthcare treatment have no option but to go to court, which is such a lengthy, expensive, confrontational and stressful process.
On recommendation 4, although the Government have stated that they are carefully considering a redress scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate, no further progress has been made. Again, I feel so disappointed, and I know that the families affected share that feeling. Patients who have suffered avoidable harm need help and support now, and actually we owe it to them. That may take the form of additional financial support, above and beyond that to which they are already entitled via welfare benefits and respite care. The frustrating thing is that many have already waited decades for help. What progress is being made to establish a redress scheme for those affected by sodium valproate?
On recommendation 5, again there has been no progress on establishing any specialist centres for those adversely affected by medicines taken during pregnancy. The Department of Health and Social Care appears to take the view that such centres are not needed. I therefore call on the Government to commit to introducing a network of such specialist centres, in recognition of the additional support and care that those affected require.
Recommendation 9 is that the Government should immediately set up a taskforce to implement the review’s recommendations. The Government have been quite clear that they have no plans to establish such a taskforce. The 14-person patient reference group that has been established had a series of meetings this year and will publish its findings shortly. I look forward to reading them, but the group is only able to provide feedback on proposals, whereas a taskforce would have been able to implement the recommendations. The Government really need to explain how they intend to keep patients fully involved as they move forward with full implementation of the report.
On the sodium valproate recommendations, the Government have not responded directly to any of these recommendations, and quite frankly they need to. More importantly, they need to implement them. On the recommendation that a clear process should be agreed to ensure that women can receive counselling related to their epilepsy treatment and contraception choices, at the moment it is a postcode lottery, so what progress is being made to ensure that women and girls with epilepsy have access to pre-conception counselling on epilepsy medicines and contraception?
On the recommendation that information should be collected to identify those already affected by exposure to valproate to ensure that they have access to diagnosis and support and plan their service provision, it is still not sufficient, especially without the redress scheme in place. May we have a response to that recommendation, please?
On the recommendation that a prospective registry should be established for all women on anti-epileptic drugs who become pregnant, and to include them in mandatory reporting of data relating to them and their children, such a registry could be expanded to collect data on paternal effects as well, but at the moment we are just looking at valproate. The valproate registry has been established, and it has been confirmed that other epilepsy medicines will be included, but that has not happened yet. It needs to be expanded to include those other epilepsy medicines as a matter of urgency, because we already know that anti-seizure medication is causing problems during pregnancy.
On the recommendation about stakeholders continuing to work with the patient groups to monitor and improve the pregnancy prevention plans and look at the next steps, all women and girls of childbearing potential have been written to, as I said at the start of my contribution, but we really need to do so much more to improve the PPP. It is important that a balance be found that allows women to make a choice about their treatment and care, while limiting the number of pregnancies exposed to sodium valproate and other harmful epilepsy medicines. May I ask the Minister what progress has been made in making improvements to the PPP?
The final recommendation on sodium valproate is:
“Clinicians should continue to follow guidance regarding prescribing of valproate and alternatives”.
Although further measures have been introduced to communicate the need for that, it is unclear—perhaps the Minister can shed some light—whether or not it is happening in practice, particularly given past concerns about the lack of communication with women and girls. That is a huge concern for me, as I know it is for many of the campaigners involved.
This is not the first time that I have raised the issue in the House. I put on record my thanks to my constituent Janet Williams and her fellow campaigner Emma Murphy for bringing the scandal to my attention in my first few weeks as an MP. Since then, I have learned so much about sodium valproate and epilepsy. I also put on record my thanks to Daniel Jennings from Epilepsy Action for his support in keeping me abreast of this and other issues that people with epilepsy face.
The challenges that women seeking pregnancy face while managing their epilepsy are not just about sodium valproate. Evidence shows that there are a number of other anti-epilepsy drugs that can cause preventable disabilities in babies when taken by their mothers. We must not forget the women impacted by other anti-epilepsy drugs. We cannot go on seeing history repeat itself. Anyone watching this debate who is in that situation might want to seek out the Epilepsy Society’s “Safe Mum, Safe Baby” campaign.
The Government need to consider funding research into safer epilepsy medicines so that babies will not be born with preventable disabilities caused by their mothers’ life-saving drugs. Some important progress has been made, but there are far too many areas in which we are still waiting for action and further response from the Government. It is deeply concerning that the Government have so far chosen not to respond to the specific recommendations on sodium valproate, because it took six months before they produced their initial response to the Cumberlege report, and after a further six months we are still waiting for their full reply.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we go any further, may I make an appeal to hon. Members who are speaking from home to remember that those who are here in the Chamber still have to get back to their constituencies this evening—and that usually that which can be said in 10 minutes can be said more effectively in five or six?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you will pleased to know that I will probably speak only for approximately three minutes, having got used to that time limit.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in today’s important debate, one year on from the publication of Baroness Cumberlege’s independent medicines and medical devices safety review. I thank Baroness Cumberlege and her team for their work, and of course the women who bravely shared their horrific experiences, which shone a light on the horrors of the mesh scandal. Without their bravery, the review would not have been possible.
It is vital that the Government continue to listen to the victims who were ignored for far too long. I was glad to hear reassurances from the Minister, following the publication of the report, that the Department is committed to doing so. I was proud to support the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, part 1 of which established the role of an independent commissioner for patient safety and states:
“The Commissioner’s core duties are to…promote the safety of patients”.
If that prevents the repetition of any one of the mistakes from the past, it will have reduced pain and suffering for our constituents, and it will have done its job.
In my time as a high street solicitor, I acted on behalf of a number of clients who experienced horrific difficulties as a result of mesh implants, like those so clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). The trauma that mesh patients underwent was truly horrendous, and it is shameful that it took so long for action to be taken and for women’s voices to be heard.
I welcomed the announcement in February by NHS England and NHS Improvement’s women and children’s programme of care that it is commissioning specialist services for women with complications with mesh inserts. The regional centres will ensure that women receive specialist treatment to mitigate this awful suffering. I encourage County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust to ensure that its patients access the appropriate treatment applicable for the mesh implants they have and to get access to the justice they deserve.
Baroness Cumberlege’s review was a powerful reminder of the need to listen to patient voices in safety matters. I am glad that the Department of Health and Social Care has offered an unreserved apology for its mistakes in the past, and welcome the steps that it has taken so far to build on the report’s recommendations. I look forward to the Minister outlining any further response to Baroness Cumberlege’s report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman most profusely for his brevity.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
There are quite a few people I want to pay tribute to. First, I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who is unfortunately not in her place, for bringing forward this very important debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith); I am fortunate and proud also to be a member of the APPG for valproate and other anti-epileptic drugs in pregnancy. Between the work that she does with her constituents, and my constituents, they really are a force to behold.
I turn—very awkwardly—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who made the important but depressing point that it does appear that women’s health only seems to be paid any real attention when men talk about it. That is a depressing thought for every man and woman in this Chamber, and for every woman out there in the country. It should not take a man to come forward and say, “There’s a problem that we need to listen to”. There are women going to their GPs who are not being listened to. There are women who have been medically gaslighted and told, “You don’t have this; you might have something else” or “It’s just a bad period. Why don’t you try some more painkillers?”. That is wrong. As my right hon. Friend said, endometriosis can take nearly nine years to be diagnosed and a number of women unfortunately end up taking their own life because they cannot cope with the daily pain. That is something of which we should all be shamed. We must do everything we can in this Chamber to put it right.
I want to talk about sodium valproate in particular. I will try to keep my comments brief, because the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood covered the main ethos of the debate. It all comes down to what Baroness Cumberlege said in her report. For decades, the healthcare system has neglected to inform patients about the effects of valproate on unborn babies when it is taken by mothers during pregnancy. Those effects include physical malformations, autism and developmental delay in many children.
For many, valproate provides an incredibly valuable relief from epilepsy and mental illness, so it continues to be prescribed because for some there is no alternative. But for all these years there has been no advice to the contrary, saying, “If you take this while you are pregnant, this could be the impact on your unborn child and the development of that child.”. Unfortunately, that advice has been lacking, so many expectant mothers have been taking this drug in ignorance. It is right that we have started to address that, but we need to go much further.
Thanks to decades of campaigning by scientists, doctors, charities and affected families, proper mechanisms have been put in place and patients are now warned about the effects of valproate on their unborn child. The Government have also launched the valproate pregnancy prevention programme to ensure that no unborn baby is affected again, but we need to ensure that every GP is aware so that patients are not only advised about the potential impact, but that they are actively informed of it when they are being prescribed this medication. Having said that, the time that it took the healthcare system to listen and respond has left acute suffering and serious concern for the families affected. As Baroness Cumberlege said in the review:
“The system is not good enough at spotting trends in practice and outcomes that give rise to safety concerns.”
Ultimately, the one message that we all need to realise is that listening to patients is pivotal. When many, many people come forward with symptoms, doctors need to listen. We need to listen to doctors and we need to send a strong message that we are there to listen and act on concerns.
Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I have a constituent who suffers from epilepsy and needs valproate to treat her epilepsy disorder. It is the only drug that has been able to provide relief for her condition. She has five children, all of whom have, unfortunately, have been affected by foetal valproate spectrum disorder, and this is because she was not given any information, let alone the right information, about what effect this medication might have on her children. As much as I support the initiatives put in place to prevent further avoidable damage to families and children, we need to support those victims with a redress scheme, similar to how we gave thalidomide victims the compensation they deserved. So may I urge the Government and the Minister to establish a redress agency, as set out in the “First Do No Harm” report recommendations, which I wholeheartedly support, to ensure that the victims of valproate used during pregnancy get the compensation they rightly deserve and that I can go back to my constituent and tell her that we have listened?
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on obtaining this debate. I am chair of the all-party group on hormone pregnancy tests, which contains 135 MPs. This is just one of the countless times I have stood on the Floor of this House on behalf of thousands of victims affected by the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos to plead with this Government’s Ministers to do the right thing. I have used most of my Prime Minister’s questions and Health orals on this issue. Some 1.5 expectant women in the UK were prescribed Primodos, a hormone-based pregnancy test used in the 1960s and 1970s that caused them to have babies with malformations and disabilities, to have miscarriages and to have stillbirths. For decades, these families have been dismissed and have been told repeatedly that despite all the evidence of a cover-up, it is all in their heads and there is no link. So imagine my relief, and theirs, when one year ago today the Cumberlege review was published. It was the most comprehensive assessment of all the evidence on the hormone pregnancy tests and it said very clearly that Primodos caused avoidable harm. The report exposed widespread systemic failings, where warnings were ignored. For hundreds of Primodos families across the country who had campaigned for the truth and closure, the conclusion of this report was a significant moment of recognition. The review also said that had Primodos been removed from the market in 1967, when concern was first raised, many of these families would not have endured the decades of suffering. It was also very clear that compensation should be made available for these people.
Today, we are in this House to ensure that this report does not gather dust, which the cynic in me would say is the Government’s intention. I pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who is sitting in the Gallery today, for conducting this review and to her colleagues. The review was thorough and sensitive over the course of two and a half years. Baroness Cumberlege has been so affected by this report that she has set up an all-party group on first do no harm. In her review, she found that the root cause was a failure of the healthcare system by some in the medical profession who have ignored the concerns of women and their families. From these findings comes clear guidance and recommendations on how to support these people and ensure that these things do not occur again. The Minister will be aware that in Scotland some of these measures have been implemented so I would like to ask: why the delay in this Department? The Government refuse to acknowledge the Primodos families and instead keep telling us, “We refuse to comment due to an ongoing legal action.” That is a smokescreen, an excuse, a deliberate refusal to accept that Primodos families deserve justice. Baroness Cumberlege remarked in the other place that
“rumours are…rife of a ritual burial”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 September 2020; Vol. 805, c. 385.]
of the report. Frankly, from the answers to the parliamentary questions that I have asked, it is easy to see why that conclusion is reached. Today is the Minister’s opportunity to give an assurance to the families that the report will be implemented in full.
In one of the letters that the Minister wrote to me, she said that there is no causal link between Primodos and deformities. She hides behind the expert working group report to justify her refusal to give the families of Primodos the dignity and justice they deserve. However, is she aware that the expert working group, which was done by the MHRA, a Department of Health and Social Care agency made up of civil servants, who decided who would be on the group, was so discredited by academics, campaigners and Members of this House? We had an urgent question in the House on its report, and I ask the Minister to look at that debate, because every aspect of the expert working group was discredited. It is surprising that the Government are using that group as a reason not to compensate these people.
I ask the Minister to remember that the Cumberlege review was set up after the expert working group. Baroness Cumberlege’s group looked at the expert working group’s report with a fine-toothed comb. Despite that, with all the other evidence it heard, it came to the conclusion that the harm was avoidable and that there was a link. In a Sky interview, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said of the expert working group report:
“At one point it says that they could not find a causal association between Primodos and congenital anomalies, but neither could they categorically say that there was no causal link.”
It was also found at the time that the report’s initial recommendations had been changed to its final recommendations. Even in that report, there were discrepancies.
Why does the Minister continue to rely on the findings of that discredited expert working group report, and why does she continue to remind us that there is no causal link when she knows well that there was no causal link for the thalidomide victims and they have rightly been compensated? She also knows that it will be impossible to test these drugs on pregnant women, so there could only ever be a possible link.
The Minister will know the inspirational campaigner for Primodos families, Marie Lyon, with whom I have had the pleasure of working for the last 10 years. Marie Lyon will refuse to let this scandal be swept under the carpet, just as I and my parliamentary colleagues will. We are often reminded of the bravery and dignity of the people who have suffered and the families who look after them, including children and older people. They deserve respect and admiration—and they deserve justice. It is outrageous for the Government to suggest that justice for Primodos families could be delayed or denied. If they were given compensation, then we would not have to consider any legal recourse.
I ask the Minister again: please do not listen to the civil servants. Do not listen to the MHRA expert working group recommendations, which have been roundly condemned. Instead, please look at the report of the Cumberlege review, which was carried out by a Conservative former Health Minister and the experts who sat with her. They went through everything, and they have made it very clear what needs to be done.
I ask the Minister please to compensate the victims of Primodos and, of course, all the victims of mesh and sodium valproate, and I urge her please to stop listening to the bureaucrats—the civil servants—in the NHS and give justice to the victims of Primodos, mesh and sodium valproate.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to speak in this debate on such an important inquiry. I pay tribute to Members across the House for some outstanding speeches today, and to those who have campaigned for so long to draw attention to the issues that have been addressed in this excellent report, which I think reflects very clearly the distress shared by hundreds of affected patients and their families.
I want to focus on problems with mesh implants, which have been raised with me by many constituents, and most recently by Nicole MacNiven. Nicole has been in constant pain since her mesh was fitted four years ago, and she of course wants to see action on the back of this report. The timelines of events contained in the report make for salutary reading. In each case, warning signs were dismissed, patient and practitioner concerns disregarded, and those at the heart of the healthcare system allowed professional or commercial concerns to outweigh the interests of patients. As a result, decisions on harm avoidance were delayed, allowing many more women’s lives to be diminished or destroyed, and sometimes also those of their babies.
In the case of mesh implants, concern was expressed for many years, but it took until 2014 before the Scottish Government took the lead and called for a suspension of their use, something the MHRA should have done long before. Baroness Cumberlege’s words are very direct and very telling when she reviews the many treatments and devices the inquiry was asked to investigate, but which fell outwith its remit. She concluded:
“Concerns about these…point to a healthcare system that cannot be relied upon to identify and respond promptly to safety concerns.”
That certainly describes the case of mesh implants, and these words should be a wake-up call for the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as he takes over responsibility for a regulatory system for the whole UK that is in serious need of reform. As the inquiry makes clear, the healthcare system takes far too long to pull back to a place of safety when warning signs emerge or, as Professor Ted Baker puts it, there is an “insidious” culture of defensiveness and blame.
Key to the failure of the MHRA has been its lack of engagement with patients, which is what makes the recommendation of a patient safety commissioner so important. I am pleased that, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has just set out, the Scottish Government have consulted on the appointment of a truly independent commissioner, as recommended by Baroness Cumberlege and endorsed by Scottish mesh survivors. However, that is not what is proposed by the UK Government, who seem determined to let the Health Secretary appoint the commissioner. The recent scandal over how Ministers in the Department of Health make important appointments should lead to a rethink of that proposal. This is too important an issue to let the usual Tory chumocracy operate.
It has taken a long time, but now the report is here, it is the responsibility of Governments to ensure that women such as Nicole MacNiven get the support they need and deserve. The Scottish mesh survivors charter sets out some key demands, and this has now been endorsed by the Scottish Government. A mesh fund has been established, and steps are to be taken to provide reimbursement for past mesh removal surgery. A comprehensive service for mesh complications and removal is being established, and that will be developed in consultation with the affected women. The national service will be delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supported by more than £1.3 million of Scottish Government funding for 2020-21. For those patients who are reluctant to return to the NHS for mesh removal, NHS Scotland is tendering internationally for additional capacity.
We have heard so clearly today how the healthcare system has badly let down women damaged by mesh implants. The Scottish Government have appreciated this, and accepted their obligation to support these women and to do what needs to be done, so now the UK Government must follow suit and implement Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendations. Given what we have heard in the Chamber today, that is the very least these women should expect.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Along with other Members here, I took part in the debates on sodium valproate in 2017 and on vaginal mesh in 2018. I welcome the fact that Baroness Cumberlege’s inquiry covered both of these issues, along with Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test that, like valproate, contributed to congenital abnormalities. At the time of our debates, it was clear that the same underlying issues had driven all three disasters and that there were four main features: a failure of licensing and regulation in the first place, particularly regarding implantable devices such as vaginal mesh; a lack of accurate information so doctors could discuss the risks of these drugs and devices and allow patients to give genuine, informed consent; a weak and poorly publicised system for doctors or patients to report adverse events that would result in action; and finally, the failure of doctors to listen to the affected women who were raising concerns.
The report makes nine recommendations, with two main aims: the need to provide remedial support and redress for the women and children affected; and how to prevent something similar happening ever again in future. The report also captures the experiences of women who have been campaigning on these issues for years, which are well summarised on the report’s contents page:
“‘No-one is listening’—The patient voice dismissed…‘I was never told’—the failure of informed consent”.
Considering the evolution of these disasters, I would perhaps reverse those two aims, as the problems started with the failure of regulators to ensure that these drugs and devices were safe and to provide accurate information on which women and their doctors could base treatment decisions.
I will focus my remarks on vaginal mesh, as there were additional issues associated with its licensing and use. In particular, the original trials comparing mesh with traditional abdominal operations did not have a long enough follow-up. This meant that while immediate surgical complications such as bladder injury were seen to reduce from one in 10 to one in 100, the later mesh complications were not identified. This led to the original vaginal mesh tapes being defined as low-risk devices and gynaecologists switching to this approach as it actually appeared safer for patients.
The whole issue was compounded by the fact that, after that initial research, the federal drug administration in America licensed all similar tapes without further trials, despite the fact that their design and how they were inserted at surgery changed significantly. The products that it passed then largely got accepted by the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Because late problems such as muscle or nerve damage were not recognised, gynaecologists did not even have the accurate information to discuss benefits and risks with patients.
The Scottish Government were the first to advise against routine use of vaginal mesh in 2014 and established a registry in 2017, but there have been no vaginal meshes inserted since 2018. They have accepted all the recommendations that are under devolved control and are in the process of appointing an independent patient safety commissioner. The UK Government have brought in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 but did not take the opportunity to establish a registry of all implanted devices to allow long-term audit and patient recall in future, if necessary.
There are risks and complications with any operation and they should be presented clearly and openly to allow patients to make an informed choice of what is important for them. Dr Wael Agur, a well-known gynaecologist involved in the mesh campaigns, works in Ayrshire and Arran, my local health board, and working closely with patient groups, he developed a Scottish patient decision aid for patients with incontinence, which was praised in the report. However, there is a need to get consensus on such decision aids and to ensure they are actually used routinely.
A lack of patient information was also central to the issue of sodium valproate. While it is an excellent drug to control epilepsy, a dangerous condition that kills over 1,000 people a year, sodium valproate has caused developmental delay in thousands of babies, and birth defects ranging from cleft lip to spina bifida. While the first case reports were published many decades ago, the connection was missed due to a lack of reporting. Even now, as we have heard today, women and their children are still in danger due to not being given the right information about their medication.
All three disasters highlight the failure of the yellow card system. The MHRA plans to introduce artificial intelligence in the future to recognise common patterns and themes, but adverse events need to be reported in the first place. It is about reporting any adverse event with a possible link to a new drug or any congenital defect in a baby whose mother has received medication during pregnancy. Publicity is also needed to inform patients that they, too, can complete a yellow card and report concerns directly themselves.
A year on from the publication of the report, we need to hear from the Government how they plan to take forward Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendations, particularly on the reform of the licensing and regulation of new drugs and devices, and the system to detect and act on adverse reports. However, the Government also need to lay out how they plan to support the women affected through the provision of removal or remedial surgery and financial redress for the women who have suffered so much. Without their forceful campaigning, even more women would now be suffering. Financial compensation is also crucial for families affected by the use of Primodos or sodium valproate, so they can provide long-term support for their children.
As highlighted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), at the core of all three disasters has been the failure of doctors to listen to women, or to patronise them and dismiss them when they raise concerns. Above all, these three medical disasters should be discussed in medical schools to teach student doctors, the doctors who will look after women in the future, the importance of actually listening to all their patients.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this important debate and I commend the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it. It has been an excellent debate and that started with those who secured the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing the debate and on their leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh. There were common themes: the hope we all felt when we read the Cumberlege review a year ago and how keen we all are to make further progress. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said he wanted to reinvigorate the debate. I think that that has happened today—very much so.
I also recognise the contributions of the right hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) because we probably would not be here without their personal leadership. I do not think it is a secret that we on the Labour Benches sometimes disagree with them on matters of health policy, but not in this regard and particularly not with their iron clad commitment to patient safety.
I want to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my predecessor as shadow public health Minister. It tells us everything we need to know about her that she might have gone on to other roles on the Opposition Front Bench, but she is still at it on these issues. It is never just a job for her, but a campaign and a drive to do it. We are very lucky to have her. She helmed an all-star cast of Labour Members who have been working very hard on this issue: my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on sodium valproate; and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) with her leadership and passion around Primodos. I thought their contributions were very good indeed.
Today is the first anniversary of the publication of the Cumberlege review. It was a seismic report, one that vindicated campaigners who in many cases had fought for decades. It showed how they had been denied, derided and ignored. Crucially, it gave us nine concrete ways forward—nine ways to start to meet the obligation we have to these women and the families affected. I wish we had heard in the oral statement the following day last year an acceptance from the Government of all the recommendations and I wish we were speaking about the progress we had made in implementing all nine. I am sad that we are not. However, I will start by recognising the progress that has been made.
The apology was very widely welcomed. The patient safety commissioner will have a really big impact in this area—we just need to get on with appointing them. I am very proud of the work the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and I did with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on the identifiable database for medical devices. That will prove really valuable in time. Similarly, the network of specialist centres will be of great value to those who use them when they are fully operational.
However, it is still impossible to avoid the feeling that the Government are stopping short, particularly on the areas of redress and independent oversight. On recommendation 3, rejecting a redress agency—something that is used in other countries—is short sighted. A redress agency would have consolidated the various schemes and methods available to families in one place and given them a model that suits them, rather than one that seems to suit the Government and companies more. I hope the Minister, having heard what she has heard today, will look again at that.
Similarly, recommendation 4, on redress schemes for each of the interventions, is of course a good idea and would make the process simple and transparent. Families are struggling and need help now. Six months ago, the Government said they were thinking about that. Well, a year is more than enough time, and I hope to hear news from the Minister on that.
Similarly, on recommendation 8, a year is more than enough time to have scoped out a workable model on a doctors’ register of interests. Colleagues made points about that very well. On recommendation 9, the Government were wrong to reject an independent taskforce, which would have given impetus and drive. Perhaps that is why we have not made the progress that we want. Again, the Minister could still revisit that.
I want to highlight some of the points that campaigners raised with me in my preparation for this debate. As we have heard, it is striking that across the UK, approximately 25,000 women are still using sodium valproate. There is good reason for that in very many cases, but taking the report on board, that means 400 exposed babies every year, 200 of whom will suffer harm. That is an awful lot. The volumes of research on the topic of valproate date back to the ’70s and the causal link is well proven, so it is surprising that better information has not been made available to patients. It was right that, last month, NHS England wrote to all women of childbearing age it believes to be on valproate. It is clear that that should have happened sooner. Goodness knows that campaigners such as INFACT have been saying that for long enough. I would like to hear from the Minister today a commitment that that was not a one-off and that it will be a regular, perhaps annual, communication, because it is crucial that we communicate with those mothers and potential mothers.
Communication across Government and the health service is crucial too. I am aware that there are eight groups dealing with this issue across Government and the Department. It is right that that important work is going on, but how is it being pulled together? Who is leading on it? How do we measure the impact? How do we know it works?
The Government continue to refuse to accept responsibility for HPT/Primodos families without a proven causal association, and continue to rely on the 2017 working group review, which said that there was no conclusive association, despite later admissions to the review team that they did find a possible association. Baroness Cumberlege stated that Primodos should have been withdrawn from use in 1967 after the first substantial report from Dr Gal was published. The response from the Government was that the IMMDS review did not revisit the existing science. However, although the team did not review the existing science, it reviewed all the existing documents, including the scientific evidence available at the time, which formed a solid base for its conclusions.
That is what I mean when I say that it feels like the Government are stopping just short of what needs to be done. Where is the proper justice for these families? Ten members of the campaign group have died since the report was published, still without their justice. That is why a proper redress scheme is crucial. I hope the Minister addresses that point.
On surgical mesh, the point has been made a couple of times, but it bears repeating, that the use of such an intervention for stress urinary incontinence was paused for good reason. The conditions for resuming use have clearly not been met at this time, but I know there is pressure to do so. I hope the Minister will confirm that that will not happen unless and until those conditions are fully met.
When we discussed this issue a year ago, there was righteous anger and a sense of purpose to put these injustices right. A year later, colleagues’ frustration that we have not made greater progress is tangible. We are in danger of letting down those affected all over again. Hearing the campaigners talk about resuming campaigning is saddening. They should not have to; they did everything they needed to do. For Marie, Janet, Emma, Kath, all those who campaigned across the country over the years, including those we have now lost, and all those affected, we know what needs to be done; we now need to get on with doing it in full.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this debate on the implementation of the recommendations of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review.
Hon. Members have spoken passionately across a range of issues mentioned in the review, but before going into the detail of the recommendations I want to make a number of main points. First, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised that issue of Primodos with huge passion again today, but I am afraid I have to rebut her criticism. I am not allowed as a member of the Government to discuss an issue that is sub judice and that is a live litigation in the courts at the moment; I am simply not allowed to do that. I have made this point a number of times and cannot make it much clearer: as a Government Minister, I am not allowed to discuss something that is in the process of live litigation.
Ms Dorries
I will not, as I am about to move on to the other matters raised. I would also say that as a Government we make our decisions on the basis of scientific recommendations, and the scientific evidence provided to us at this moment in time does not support there being a causal link between Primodos and adverse outcomes in pregnancy. I am afraid that is all I am allowed to say. So on Primodos I say to those who have raised the matter that I hear everything they say and I hear the issues, but because it is sub judice I am not allowed to comment.
Ms Dorries
I will give way, but I am afraid I will not be allowed to comment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I heard both the points she made, but would the victims be compensated if the legal proceedings were withdrawn, or is this issue about the expert working group still going to be an obstacle?
Ms Dorries
I apologise, but I cannot answer the question.
Moving on, I want to address sodium valproate, in general terms now and later in more detail. I have heard the speeches today and some pertinent points were raised, and I would like to make an overall point on valproate again before going into the recommendations: valproate is a drug that saves the lives of women who can receive no other treatment for their epilepsy. Some women suffer life-threatening epileptic fits of such severity that only sodium valproate can save them; their lives would be lost if they did not take sodium valproate. Therefore it is not possible to ban the use of sodium valproate, because those women’s lives would be compromised.
A number of changes have taken place, too. A letter was sent out to women taking sodium valproate to make sure they were aware, and other measures have been put in place, which I will discuss in a moment, including ensuring that prescriptions for sodium valproate go into one box rather than being partial prescriptions, and the boxes have very clear and significant warnings on them. I could go into further detail, but the inquiry covers—
Ms Dorries
No, because the hon. Lady will be able to respond at the end of the debate and, without going into a huge amount of detail, I want to address a number of overall points that I feel can be made clear.
First, I thank Baroness Cumberlege for her report, of course. She is sitting in the Public Gallery—watching over me, as she does every day. I am delighted and not surprised that she is here, and we are all grateful to her. The report was commissioned by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), in response to public concern. It examined how the healthcare system in England responded to reports about harmful side-effects from the three specific subjects discussed today. Baroness Cumberlege was asked to chair the review. It is just not possible to do the review justice. It took two years, it was incredibly thorough, and it listened to so many voices on so many complex issues. It is not possible to do this overnight. No review undertaken by any Government on issues as serious as these has been implemented rapidly. They take a lot of discussion, time, evaluation and implementation by the NHS.
The review was published on 8 July 2020 and contains nine strategic recommendations that have wide-ranging implications for the healthcare system. That is why it is not possible to implement them rapidly. I pay tribute to the women and families who bravely shared their experiences and brought these issues to light.
Recommendation 1 was an apology. A year ago, I made that apology, and I will make it again. Having met the patient reference group members, spoken to those who have been harmed and read the report, which makes very harrowing reading, I want to make that apology again. I am desperately sorry. I have heard the stories of harm, which are harrowing. I am desperately sorry for those women who have been harmed. Of course, we all want to ensure that this ends and never happens again. The Government absolutely recognise the need for effective patient engagement to begin to rebuild trust and to ensure that we get the implementation right. That is why we established the patient reference group to work with the Department to develop this response. My officials and I have met the group regularly to gather their insights and to ensure that patient voices are heard as we progress towards a full response, which will be given in this place at the Dispatch Box before the end of this year.
Some Members said that none of the recommendations have been implemented or that we have not paid attention to them. That is simply not true. Recommendation 2 was on the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. I happen to know from discussions with Baroness Cumberlege that it was a prime concern for her that we established that role. As part of the written ministerial statement that I published in January, I announced that the Government had tabled an amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill before the Christmas recess to establish the role of an independent patient safety commissioner in line with recommendation 2. That is now in law under the Act. The commissioner will promote the safety of patients who use medicines and medical devices by ensuring that the views of the wider public about them are heard. There would be absolutely no point in having a patient safety commissioner if the role was not fully independent. That is what we are working on putting in place now. A public consultation is currently open and running until 5 August. I urge all Members who have spoken today and have constituents who have been affected to respond to that consultation to make sure that their views are known.
Recommendation 5 was on specialist centres, which are in place. There are eight specialist centres, and another will be opening in the south-west of England very shortly. Recommendation 6 was on reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I have announced that the MHRA has begun a substantial programme of work to improve how it involves patients in all aspects of its work to reform the system. Recommendation 7 was on establishing a medical device information system, again through the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. In line with Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendation, this will mean that the NHS can track patients’ outcomes and spot issues. Work is under way to build, test and cost options on how a medical device information system could be embedded into the UK healthcare system.
Turning to the recommendations that we do not accept, I was honest when I stood here and said how desperately sorry I was and how harrowing those stories were, and I am not going to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we are reviewing all the recommendations, which is what has happened in the past. I will be honest: we are not going to accept the redress agency in recommendation 3, or the taskforce. No Government have ever asked someone to chair or undertake a review and then asked those who conducted the review to implement the recommendations on behalf of the Government. That has never happened before. It is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold me to account and it is our responsibility as Ministers to implement the recommendations that the Government see fit to implement.
The Cumberlege report is a document that vividly shows the importance of patient safety and of listening to women. It is incredibly important that we listen to women. I am delighted that many people today have highlighted the adverse situations that many women experience, suffer and have to endure because they are women. It is absolutely right to say that many women are not listened to, and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) also made that point. This was the substance of the report by Baroness Cumberlege. Women are not listened to, and they have not been listened to. The women’s health strategy was not a recommendation but it was seriously influenced by Baroness Cumberlege’s review. That is why I established the women’s health strategy, and 112,000 women responded. It was not one of the recommendations, but we implemented it because women’s voices have to be heard.
Emma Hardy
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, and particular thanks again go to Baroness Cumberlege. May she continue to look over and down upon the Department of Health in ensuring that these recommendations are, hopefully, at some point enacted.
I would like to make a point about valproate. The Cumberlege review looked at the expert working group report and said it was flawed. On that point again, Epilepsy Action is looking into a campaign called “Safe Mum, Safe Baby” for alternative medications for women to use, and one of the campaigns is to ask the Government for money to help to fund some of that research. I hope that, in the light of the comments the Minister has made regarding valproate, that is something that the Government will look kindly upon.
A comment made by the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), has stayed with me. He said that this was not just about the lack of justice but about the risk of a repeat. That is why these recommendations matter, not only for justice for the women harmed but because of the risk of repeating this. I look forward to not having to hold this debate again on next year’s anniversary, but I am sure, if necessary, we will all be here—same time, same place—next year. Hopefully we will see a few more of the recommendations enacted. Thank you, everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the publication of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, First Do No Harm; further notes the Government’s failure to respond to the recommendations of that review in full; notes the significant discrepancy between the incidence of complication following mesh surgery in the Hospital Episode Statistics and the British Society of Urogynaecology databases, as highlighted in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Project Report, entitled Hospital Episode Statistics as a Source of Information on Safety and Quality in Gynaecology to Support Revalidation; notes that the Government’s plan to publish a retrospective audit to investigate the links between patient-level data to explore outcomes has not been fulfilled; notes that the moratorium on mesh implant procedures should not be lifted until that audit has been undertaken and the true scale of suffering established; notes Ministers’ failure to acknowledge recommendations relating to victims of Primodos; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations for victims of mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos without further delay.
Electricity Network Grid Charges
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a privilege to introduce my first Chamber Adjournment debate. Ideally, it would not have been at this time on a Thursday, but beggars can’t be choosers.
This is a long overdue debate on the need to reform the grid charging regime. It is an issue that has been simmering for a long time, and it is now reaching a critical period where, if change does not happen, renewable energy investment and job creation in Scotland will be put at risk, needless sums will be added to consumers’ electricity bills, and the UK Government’s pathway to net zero will also be put at risk. I will go into further detail on that, but a key issue is that the UK Government do not seem to understand the problems or have the desire and willingness to change. As a result, the remit of the regulator Ofgem is not fit for purpose either. It is not just me saying that change is required; the wider industry is saying it too. Scottish Power, SSE, Vattenfall, RWE and Red Rock Power, among others, have all called for changes to the grid charging regime, so I hope the Minister will take these matters seriously and engage with the industry to find a solution.
The national grid system was founded in 1935. There were massive and significant upgrades in the 1960s, effectively giving us the footprint that we still have, although of course there have been ongoing upgrades. With the privatisation following the Electricity Act 1989, systems had to be developed to create a framework for the private market to operate in, so in 1992 a charging system was developed that is still with us to this day. This means we have a system and a charging regime that are still aligned with the concept that electricity is generated from coal, gas, oil and large nuclear stations. That means that the charging system is still geared to incentivise power generation sites close to centres of population or, to be more accurate, the closer to London, the better.
It beggars belief that three decades on from when the system was devised based on the factors pertaining then, we are still having to highlight the absurdity of the system to the UK Government. What it means in reality is that instead of having a long-term plan for where the best locations are for the generation of renewable energy and the system required to facilitate that, we have one that does the polar opposite.
The Minister will be aware that Scotland has 25% of Europe’s offshore wind potential, but at the moment offshore developers connecting to the north of Scotland will pay the highest connection charges in the whole of Europe. Meanwhile, connections to the south of England result in generators actually getting paid to connect to the grid. That in itself shows how wrong the system is. I understand that it can be argued that there are transmission losses when moving electricity long distances, but that aspect is dealt with separately via the transmission loss multiplier, which is applied to Scottish generators.
I know it can be argued that the further away a generation site is, the more extensive the national grid network needs to be, and there are associated maintenance costs with that, but I would argue that geographical charges are not the best way to deal with that. Why penalise developers for constructing in the areas best placed to give maximum power output? Also, the charges cannot be reflective of the true cost, either, because clearly it is impossible to have a negative cost of operation, which is effectively what the payments to southern connections indicate.
What that means in numbers is that a 1 GW offshore wind farm off the north Scottish coast will pay £38 million a year to connect to the grid, yet a similarly sized offshore wind farm connecting to southern England will get paid £7 million a year. That is a £45 million a year differential between the same size Scottish and English offshore wind farms. Over 20 years, that would equate to nearly a billion pounds of difference between the two.
The reality is that Scottish offshore wind farms are now 20% more expensive than those in English waters. When lowest price is the winner takes all in the contracts for difference auctions, that is clearly a major issue. It means that investment in offshore renewable energy in Scotland is at risk, which means fewer direct jobs and less supply chain work in Scotland, but it also potentially hampers the just transition for the oil and gas industry.
The effects of the charging burden on Scottish projects can already be seen. In the 2015 auction round, Scottish projects accounted for about 40% of offshore wind contract awards made. In the 2019 round, it was less than 10%. Surely that is not an intended consequence of the charging regime. Worse, if nothing else is done, in the next few years, grid charges will be charged at a rate equivalent to 50% of the current offshore wind strike rate, and that would make it utterly impossible for Scottish projects to compete with those bidding in English waters.
The charging burden also means that the most appropriate efficient locations for renewable energy will not be utilised and maximised, which risks the net zero targets for the entire UK. Achieving net zero is now legally binding, and it is accepted that net zero is required by 2050—or 2045 in Scotland—to mitigate the effects of climate change and abide by the Paris agreement, yet there is no net zero plan in place, and we have a regulatory regime that is not fit for purpose. It makes no sense that the Government have set a legally binding net zero target, but as yet have not made net zero a statutory consideration for the regulator, and that clearly affects long-term planning for the grid transmission network. It could lead to short-term investment that needs further future upgrades, costing bill payers even more money. Both the National Infrastructure Commission and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommend that Ofgem is mandated for net zero, so could the Minister advise when she thinks Ofgem will be legally bound to consider net zero?
The UK Government initially set an ambitious target of 30 GW of offshore wind deployment by 2030, then last year they increased the target by 33%, so the new target is now 40 GW of offshore wind by the end of the decade. So far, so good—it is a welcome target, except that then we realise that the policies do not match the target. To achieve the 40 GW target, the UK Government need to mandate changes to the grid charging regime as soon as possible. They also need to rapidly increase the current auction caps or, quite simply, not enough offshore wind contracts will be awarded to meet their own targets.
How difficult is it to look ahead and work out how much future capacity needs to be allocated in the next few years? It is not difficult. Here is a hint: it requires 4 GW a year from 2025 onwards. It means doubling the existing 20 GW of offshore wind that has been consented, in a five-year period. If there are no changes to the current policies and systems, that will not happen.
We come to the next contradiction or policy failure in the mix, and that is energy interconnectors. They do not pay connection charges—the Minister confirmed to me in a parliamentary question that that was part of the EU trade deal. That is clearly a disadvantage for companies looking to construct in the UK. It means that a multi-national company is now effectively incentivised to build in another country with zero connection charges, and then surplus energy can be exported to the UK, undercutting renewable projects here.
I appreciate the advantages of a wider interconnected grid and, given that Scotland is a net exporter of electricity, Scotland might benefit, but it still does not seem right to have an uneven playing field that could impact on projects here. What is worse, for me, is that there is no control over the source of any imported energy from interconnectors. The Minister knows that. It means that, while the UK is supposed to be going green, we might end up having imported electricity generated from gas on the continent undermining the cost of renewable energy here. That is another paradox that the Minister needs to consider.
These examples illustrate how dysfunctional the current system is. The UK Government need to do something about it. The one focus they have is nuclear energy, but that is another policy that actually adds to our electricity bills. They have committed to Hinkley Point C and this week reinforced their commitment to signing a deal for another £20 billion nuclear plant at Sizewell. It is so obvious that the £20 billion would be better invested in grid upgrades, long duration storage such as pumped hydro, or even battery storage and hydrogen. Why the nuclear obsession?
The Government cannot stick to the baseload argument, given that 75% of the existing nuclear fleet will be offline before Hinkley even starts generating. To me, that proves beyond doubt that large-scale nuclear is not required. A report recently published by Good Energy in conjunction with Energy Systems Catapult demonstrates that the UK could be operating a net zero electricity network in 2050, based on 98% renewables, with the other 2% being provided by Hinkley, not because it is required but because it is assumed it will be there.
I hope the Minister can consider that report, as well as one published by Imperial College that demonstrates that the use of new pumped storage hydro could save nearly £700 million a year in system costs by 2050.
There is one more point on nuclear, in terms of grid charging. It is frustrating that EDF is going to be paid money to connect Hinkley Point C to the grid. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is effectively another hidden subsidy over and above the 35-year deal to pay £92.50 per megawatt-hour, when the strike rate for offshore wind now sits at £40 per megawatt-hour? Where does the risk for changes in the grid charging system sit? Is it with EDF or the Government? Has the grid charging system been discussed with EDF as part of the current negotiations for Sizewell?
Returning to renewable energy, Scotland leads the world in the development of wave and tidal energy generation, but the UK Government have refused to consider a proper route to market, meaning that the technology development and investment could be lost to countries such as Canada. Will the Minister therefore confirm tonight that the Government will ring-fence a proportion of capacity—the request is 100 MW—in round 4 of the auction process? Will she properly discuss with the Treasury the development of an innovation power purchase agreement to allow companies to enter into agreements to purchase electricity from emerging wave and tidal companies? Does she understand that, if this technology does scale up in the way we want and its generation costs come down, those companies will also be at the mercy of the grid-charging system, unless changes are made? Will she please open discussions with the European Marine Energy Centre on the funding needed to replace EU funding streams?
I wish to make a final point about the current charging system and price volatility. Although the actual cost of maintaining and operating the grid remains stable year on year, the charging prices vary every year. This is another example of how the system is not fit for purpose. Prices can vary by an astonishing 500% in one year. As companies cannot predict such fluctuations, they are a risk that they need to factor into the capital cost of projects. It is estimated that, by the end of this decade, the cost of that risk will be £400 million a year. That is £400 million a year going to companies so that they can hedge against the risk of price fluctuation. That is money added to our energy bills for no reason at all—money that would be better off either in our pockets or, at worst, if the £400 million is realised, at least used for investment purposes. Will the Minister address that as well, please?
One small positive in the mix is that Ofgem has now recognised that there is an issue and proposed changes with the targeted charging review and the ongoing access and forward-looking charging review consultation. The downside is that the changes Ofgem currently proposes do not resolve the problem. Indeed, Ofgem’s new proposals could prejudice existing embedded renewable energy sites in Scotland. What assessment have the Government made of Ofgem’s “minded to implement” proposals? Will the Minister finally admit that it is for the UK Government to take charge of the process and make the necessary changes for Ofgem to follow, rather than continuing to say that it is “for the regulator”, which is actually just passing the buck?
To sum up, I have a list of questions for the Minister to consider and I am sure she would love to answer them. Will she consider the impact of the current locational grid charges that make Scottish offshore wind farms 20% more expensive than southern English ones? Does she recognise that the charges applied to Scotland are the highest in Europe? Does she accept that the projections are that the charging burden could go as high as half the current strike rate that is received and paid to companies? Does she understand that the impact of price volatility could cost £400 million a year by 2030? What will be done to assess and mitigate that? Does she understand that the current Ofgem proposals could adversely affect 6 GW of embedded energy projects? Will she consider the cost savings and system benefits that would arise from adding more pumped hydro storage to the grid?
The Minister must realise that it is for the Government to set the policy and regime for Ofgem to implement and that a new policy statement is long overdue. I really hope that she can address those points, and that she will work with the industry and the regulator to shape an electricity system that is designed for the 21st century—one that will lead us on the pathway to net zero.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing an important debate.
Network charging arrangements are central to the delivery of a secure and affordable net zero energy system, and the Government absolutely understand that. By law, network charging is a matter for Ofgem, as the independent regulator. Network charges are governed by the principle that the user pays. For the transmission network, that means higher charges for generators in Scotland, as much electricity is sent over long distances to centres of demand in the rest of Great Britain. By contrast, homes and businesses in Scotland pay lower transmission charges than consumers elsewhere in Great Britain. This cost-reflective approach ensures the efficient use of the network and keeps costs down for all bill payers.
Ofgem recognises the critical importance of charging arrangements in progressing to net zero. Last week, it published its consultation on a number of reform proposals as part of its access and forward-looking charges review, including a proposed reduction in the up-front charge paid by generators and demand users connecting to the distribution network. Ofgem’s consultation also noted potential issues with transmission charging arrangements and signalled that it is considering a wider and more holistic review of them.
As the pace of the energy transformation accelerates, it will be important for Ofgem to have clear sight of the Government’s policy priorities for energy decarbonisation. We have therefore committed in our energy White Paper to consulting on Ofgem’s strategy and policy statement in 2021. It will set out the strategic priorities of the Government’s energy policy, the policy outcomes sought and the role of the Government, Ofgem and other parties collectively responsible for delivering these goals.
For the Government’s part, we remain firmly committed to the roll-out of renewable generation projects and are taking a number of measures to support it. We will continue to support low-carbon projects across Great Britain through our contracts for difference scheme. Scotland has benefited significantly from the scheme since its inception in 2015; 34% of all projects are located there. The next round will open at the end of this year.
We have launched the offshore transmission network review to improve the delivery of transmission connections for offshore wind generation. We are working very closely with the devolved Administrations on that.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The offshore transmission review, as the Minister knows, means a lot to my constituents because they strongly support net zero. Offshore wind has been an amazing achievement in East Anglia, but it is bringing new infrastructure and we have the threat of new pylons across open countryside. On pricing, is it not true that one should look not only at the charging, but at expenditure on capital items that are relieving infrastructure pressure? For example, the eastern link, a huge undersea cable off the coast of Scotland that will relieve pressure on the countryside, will be more than £3 billion. People in East Anglia will hope to see similar expenditure so that they have a defrayment of the infrastructure that would otherwise be going over the countryside.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on the matter and continues to drive the Department to make sure that we are moving the offshore transmission network review at pace to find the right solutions that work for the whole country. We will be working on the review to improve delivery.
If I may, I will reply in detail in writing to the very long series of questions asked by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, to ensure that he gets as full an answer as possible. In closing, I emphasise the importance of the network charging arrangements, which support the delivery of net zero in a fair and efficient way. The reforms that Ofgem is progressing will help us to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
DrafT Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance, Young Carer GranTs, Short-term Assistance and Winter Heating Assistance) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the allotted marked places. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has deemed that masks should be worn in Committee. Our colleagues from Hansard will be very appreciative if you could send your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance, Young Carer Grants, Short-term Assistance and Winter Heating Assistance) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Dr Huq.
The draft order was laid before the House on 17 May this year, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it today. It is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution. Before I turn to its provisions, I thought it might be helpful to place it in context.
The order is to be made under the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved powers to Scotland and legislated for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 was the next major update to that settlement, delivering the cross-party Smith commission agreement. The commission had been established following the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. As a result of the Scotland Act 2016, a wide range of powers, including social security powers, have now been transferred to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.
Scotland Act orders are used to implement, update and adjust Scotland’s devolution settlement. The Scottish and UK Governments work closely together to agree the content of those orders. The draft order is a section 104 order, which allows for necessary legislative amendments in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It will ensure the safe and secure transition of powers to the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act.
Turning to the purpose and effect of the draft order, it amends social security and tax legislation in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which I shall refer to as the 2018 Act. Under the Act, the Scottish Government are able to introduce new forms of assistance using the social security powers devolved under section 22 of the Scotland Act 2016. Section 31 of the 2018 Act allows the Scottish Government to provide financial support for people in Scotland with a disability.
On 26 July this year, the Scottish Government will introduce the first form of disability assistance for children and young people, called child disability payment. The payment will operate in broadly the same way as disability living allowance for children, the reserved benefit that it will replace, currently provided for by the Department for Work and Pensions. The UK and Scottish Governments’ intention is to ensure that there is equal treatment, with similar reserved benefits for specialist tax and benefit disregards.
For the equivalent reserved benefit, the disability living allowance, the UK Government provide a VAT zero rate for the leasing of vehicles to individuals under the scheme, a VAT zero rate for the onward sale of the vehicles by the lessor and an exemption from the insurance premium tax on the insurance covering vehicles leased under the Motability scheme. The draft order extends those provisions to ensure that people on child disability payment also benefit from the reliefs.
The draft order also extends the definition of a disabled person in certain taxation legislation to include individuals in receipt of a qualifying rate of disability assistance for children and young people. This ensures that eligibility for child disability payment receives the same treatment as for reserved benefits in terms of inheritance tax, income tax, corporation tax, child trust funds and individual savings accounts. The order also amends reserved social security legislation to ensure that the three forms of disability assistance to be introduced by the Scottish Government are disregarded in the calculation of reserved income-related benefits in the same way as the benefits they replace—namely, disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance.
Finally, the Scottish Government introduced child winter heating assistance, the young carer grant and short-term assistance in 2020. The order amends legislation to ensure that there is equivalent provision for Northern Ireland with respect to disregarding benefits as income or capital. Making these changes is not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and therefore the UK Government are facilitating that through the order. This will ensure that people in Scotland are not disadvantaged by devolution, meeting the principle set out within the Smith commission.
To be clear, the order makes only technical amendments to reserved legislation and does not set the policy for child disability payment. Furthermore, the powers of the UK Government will not be reduced as a result of the order. The order is a sensible and pragmatic step on the part of the UK Government in our commitment to make devolution work and reflects the continued strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, I think for the first time. I say to the Minister from the outset that the Opposition do not oppose the order. As he set out, it allows provisions made under the 2018 Act in Scotland to work effectively. We fundamentally agree with the position that the Minister set out. However, I will make some brief observations.
First, we are now in the middle of 2021, but only in recent months have people in Scotland begun to receive the Scottish child payment. That policy was announced by the Holyrood Government in June 2019, when they said 170,000 children could benefit. In the end, it has taken more than 20 months before families started receiving the benefit. The SNP might say that a pandemic caused the delay, but I suggest that a pandemic that forced thousands into financial difficulties is exactly when social security is needed most. I have a feeling that the Minister might well agree.
The Scottish child payment, although welcome, does not go quite far enough. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, more than a third of Scottish children growing up in a family where someone has a disability live in poverty. That is not the only issue with social security in Scotland. Valid concerns are being raised about the Scottish welfare fund, which should act as a lifeline to many families. Instead, organisations have highlighted mounting evidence that the fund is neither adequate nor accessible in all cases. In fact, a report last year found that, in some local authorities, as many as 69% of crisis grant applications made in the most desperate of circumstances were rejected. The SNP should spend less time game-playing at Westminster and more time responding to these urgent issues. Labour in Scotland, along with many stakeholders, have called for an urgent review of the Scottish welfare fund, and we hope the SNP will listen.
Of course, the welfare problems in Scotland are made worse by the cruel and reckless policies of the UK Government, which often exacerbate poverty, such as the two-child cap and the potential ending of the £20 uplift to universal credit. When Labour campaigned for the creation of the devolved Parliaments, it was so that Governments in different parts of the country could make different choices. With the devolution of social security, the aim was to build a fairer and more dignified welfare system. The SNP Government must start using the full extent of powers available to do exactly that. It is time for them to shift away from merely transitioning benefits to the Scottish Parliament and start reforming the eligibility and adequacy of benefits so that people across Scotland have enough income to live a dignified life.
It is the responsibility of both the Scottish and UK Governments to work towards the eradication of poverty. I hope they both take that duty as seriously as they ought to. As I say, the Opposition do not oppose the order and welcome the position of the Minister. It is just a shame that it has taken such a long time for Holyrood to decide to undertake these changes.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful for the support from the Opposition, and particularly for the comments of the hon. Member for Ogmore. Some of his points were rightly directed at the Scottish Government and are for them to respond to. However, I will say is that this Government are always willing to work with them to facilitate those powers and the administration of them when required. I do not believe there has been any delay on our part.
It is notable that no Member from the Scottish National party is present. I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point that it would be rather better for them to invest their energies into using the powers that they have, rather than forever asking for more powers to be added. This order is a sensible and pragmatic step to continue the devolution of welfare powers and it reflects the strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Question put and agreed to.
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 8th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 View all Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 July 2021 - (8 Jul 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that, in line with the House of Commons Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless people are speaking or are medically exempt. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The Hansard Reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
We will now begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause or schedule that it affects.
Clause 1
Determinations in respect of certain non-domestic rating lists
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Effectiveness of non-domestic rating lists provisions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of one year after the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.
(2) The assessment must include consideration of—
(a) the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives;
(b) the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to coronavirus support for business and business rates; and
(c) possible related changes to law and policy.”
This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The Bill before the Committee is one of two halves. The first half is a measure that changes the valuation assumptions applied when making business rates determinations in the light of the pandemic. The provisions that will implement the measure are contained entirely within the first clause.
In order to understand clause 1, I will briefly take us back to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which requires business rates to be calculated from rateable values that, broadly speaking, represent annual rental values. Those values are updated at regular general revaluations. Earlier this year, we were extremely grateful for the cross-party support for the passing of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021, which sets out the date of the next revaluation on 1 April 2023, based on a valuation date of 1 April 2021. That means that future business rates bills will reflect the impact of the pandemic on the commercial property market.
Outside general revaluations, rateable values can be altered only to correct an inaccuracy or to reflect a material change of circumstance, such as a physical change to a property or locality. For example, a successful material change in circumstances challenge might be made on the basis of significant roadworks in a property’s immediate area. The material change in circumstances legislation itself, which is set out in the 1988 Act, was not designed with pandemics or coronavirus in mind, and the material change in circumstances system was not intended to be used in response to matters with economy-wide impacts. Relying on the MCC system, rather than on targeted business rates reliefs, is not in line with the original intention of the law and would not be the right approach to take to support businesses that have been impacted during the pandemic. Clause 1 of the Bill therefore clarifies that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, and the Government’s response to it, should be reflected at the next general revaluation on 1 April 2023.
Business rates are devolved, so clause 1 applies to England. Decisions on whether to take similar steps in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are for the respective Governments to make. I understand that in Northern Ireland the matter is still under consideration. The Scottish Government have recently announced that they agree with our position that it is not appropriate to use the MCC appeals system in relation to covid-19 or related restrictions. Yesterday, the Welsh Government announced that they also agree with our position, and set out their intention to seek to include provisions covering Wales in the Bill. We will work closely with the Welsh Government on this, and I will keep Members, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, updated on any amendments to the Bill that might be required. I am glad to say that the largely cross-party support that we have received for this measure is now spreading to cross-territorial support.
As I said on Second Reading, the measures in clause 1 do not mean that we have not provided significant support to businesses during the pandemic; there has been a £16 billion package of support for business rates. We have also announced £1.5 billion in relief to be targeted at ratepayers who have not already benefited from support linked to business rates. The additional business rates relief will be administered by councils, and my Department will continue to work closely with local government to enable ratepayers to apply for the support as soon as possible, subject to the passing of the Bill.
New clause 2 would require an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in clause 1 to be made within one year of Royal Assent. It would require the Secretary of State’s assessment to consider
“the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to coronavirus support for business and business rates”,
as well as the Government’s overall package of support for businesses impacted by the pandemic. We completely understand hon. Members’ concern to ensure that the business rates system is kept under review.
The objective of the Bill, which is to ensure that successful MCC appeals cannot be made on the basis of the pandemic or the Government’s response to it, will be met as soon as the Bill is enacted, so I can certainly assure the Committee that there will be no need to monitor the implementation of any changes to the rating list or any new practices by the Valuation Office Agency once the Bill is passed. That is simply because the VOA has not, to date, been amending the rating list to reflect covid-19. I hope the Committee will see that new clause 2 is therefore unnecessary.
I appreciate, however, that interest extends beyond the provisions in the Bill to the design of the wider business rates system. This matter will therefore be considered as part of the fundamental review of business rates, which is currently being carried out by the Chancellor. We published the consultation earlier this month to set out proposals for moving to a system of three-yearly evaluations. As part of ensuring the sustainability of that three-yearly cycle, we are reviewing the MCC system. It is clear from our need to bring forward this piece of legislation that the MCC system has not worked as expected in this instance.
I can certainly assure the Committee that we will be looking more generally at the MCC rules as we see how they can be improved to avoid this type of situation arising again. We will work with the VOA, stakeholders and, I hope, our Opposition colleagues to understand how we can improve the system and track and monitor its operation. We absolutely monitor and track changes to the business rates yield through our regular returns from local government. The VOA publishes regular statistics on the rating list and, of course, keeps us fully informed of activity on the rating list. I am confident we can find a sustainable system that we can monitor effectively and that will stand the test of time.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. May I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday? What better way to spend a birthday than in a Bill Committee? I am grateful to him for setting out the rationale for clause 1, which would rule out covid-related material change in circumstances claims for business rates appeals.
As we outlined on Second Reading, the Opposition broadly recognise the rationale for the Bill as a whole, and we accept the logic for the provisions in clause 1. Material change in circumstances claims related to covid restrictions would not be the most effective way to provide help for business that have been—I hope only temporarily—badly hit by the pandemic. Indeed, many of those who most need the extra help might struggle with the time-consuming process of such an appeal. We appreciate that a large number of covid-related appeals could lead to what has been described as an effective shadow revaluation, which could put a real strain on the Valuation Office Agency, when its time and expertise would be better used on the upcoming general revaluation of business rates in 2023.
There is also a risk that new MCC-related changes would have to be made every time Government restrictions on businesses changed. It remains to be seen whether we have seen the last of the restrictions and business closures as a result of the pandemic—we hope we have—but if not, a further wave of such applications in the wake of further restrictions could cause future problems for the VOA.
To go alongside this legislation, the Government have announced an additional relief fund for businesses that have so far not benefited from any rates relief, such as those in the supply chain of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In principle, that seems a sensible way of administering targeted support without the need for MCC claims, but questions remain: first on the adequacy of the £1.5 billion figure, especially for certain sectors such as large airports, and secondly on the guidance and eligibility criteria for the fund.
We welcome that clause 1 gives local authorities some guarantee that their income from business rates will remain reasonably stable for the immediate future. With business rates forming such a substantial part of local authorities’ income, they need that stability. The uncertainty that would be caused by a potential income reduction as a result of large numbers of MCCs could cause real problems, particularly following such a difficult period for local government, marred by covid pressures after 10 years of austerity and broken promises from the Government about their support.
As I said during the evidence sessions, this legislation can be considered to be shifting the financial risk, or burden, from local government to the national Government by means of support for businesses. That seems reasonable, given the financial difficulties that local government is facing, but it is reasonable only if the funding available is sufficient to guarantee businesses the support they need. On Second Reading, we raised concerns about whether the £1.5 billion package that goes alongside the Bill would be enough to support all those businesses that have missed out on rates relief and other support so far, and the Government still have not clarified how they arrived at that figure or who exactly they envisage it supporting. It would be helpful if the Minister referred to that in his response.
I raise the example of large airports, which have been among the sectors worst affected by the pandemic. They pay huge amounts of business rates, but have been able to access only limited rates relief. Many were planning to put in MCC claims to try to recoup some of that money and stay afloat, but this legislation rules that out. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the £1.5 billion fund is supposed to cover airports as well as all the other businesses that have missed out.
During the evidence sessions, David Magor, the chief executive officer of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, said of the £1.5 billion:
“the amount does not appear to be sufficient to meet the desires of all the ratepayers who had outstanding challenges and large assessments, like the airports. The challenge for the Government is to ensure that those particular ratepayers are satisfied.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 28, Q41.]
Heathrow, for example, had losses in 2020 exceeding £2 billion, including a business rates bill of £120 million— the biggest in the UK. It has been given £8 million in business rates relief. If the £1.5 billion pot is to support large airports too, it would appear to be inadequate. If not, what are larger airports supposed to do as an alternative to claiming for MCC, and will the Government come forward with further funding for large airports and critical infrastructure?
Even taking the airports and critical infrastructure out of the equation, there is serious concern about the £1.5 billion figure, which is shared by some of the experts we heard from at the evidence sessions earlier in the week. We have since had written evidence from the car parking sector, which is another one that has expressed real concerns. The consensus appears to be that we simply will not know whether it is enough or not until the Government publish the guidance for the scheme—something that businesses and local authorities are hoping happens urgently.
Even though it is usual for guidance to be published after the accompanying legislation has completed its passage through Parliament, there seems to be no reason why the Government could not publish draft guidance now and an indicative figure on the amount for each local authority immediately. The Opposition strongly urge the Government to do so, and given that the passing of the legislation is not actually required in order for the £1.5 billion to be released, we encourage the Government to get on with it quickly. There are businesses out there in real financial difficulty that are desperate for rapid help.
I also wonder whether the Minister can address concerns raised during the evidence sessions about the timing of the legislation and its impact on the release of funding. As we heard on Tuesday from Adrian Blaylock of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Sarah Pickup of the Local Government Association, there is a concern about timing related to section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In essence, a local authority cannot take financial decisions more than six months after the financial year to which the decision relates. As we know, the majority of covid restrictions applied during financial year 2020-21 rather than 2021-22, so there is a question about whether a local authority can grant these reliefs to cover losses incurred during the 2020-21 financial year. Local authorities need reassurance that they can; otherwise, strictly speaking, all the local schemes will need to be set up and be running by the end of September.
As of this morning, we have the legislative timetable until the summer recess, and while the Government thought it appropriate to schedule two days for the Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill, they could not find time for the remaining stages of the Bill we are discussing today. Given that there will be Lords consideration, as well as the conference recess, I do not see how the Bill will get through all its stages before the middle to end of October. If the Minister can correct me on the timescales, I will happily give way. If not, I hope that he will explain how this will affect the timescale for payments.
We have received supplementary evidence from the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation suggesting that a way around this problem might be to amend the Bill, effectively to exclude it from section 47 of the 1988 Act. I am interested to know whether the Government might consider such an amendment on Report to give local authorities and businesses reassurance.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentlemen for the constructive way in which he has held this discussion and raised legitimate points, especially following the sittings on Tuesday, which I thought were useful and informative. I will try to address all those points.
On funding, the £1.5 billion comes on top of a significant package of business rates support: £16 billion of relief over two years for the retail, hospitality, leisure and nursery ratepayers most affected by the pandemic. The new scheme will be targeted at the sectors that are most affected by covid-19 but have not benefited from that type of business rates support. It will enable councils to award relief to businesses that they consider to have been most affected, using their local knowledge, contacts and systems for determining who will be eligible. Councils will ultimately be responsible for decisions on the award of the relief. The crux of the issue is that it is about ensuring that relief is targeted at the businesses most affected by covid-19 and providing certainty for ratepayers and councils—it is not about saving money. It is never easy to draw the line, but we think that this strikes the right balance between supporting ratepayers and maintaining a tax base that continues to fund vital services in local government, which are more important than they ever have been.
On the point about airports, it is a core principle of the business rates system that MCC challenges should be used between revaluations to address issues of a discrete geographic, sectoral or temporal nature. The drop in demand for airports in the light of the pandemic is exactly the sort of market-wide economic change affecting property values that should be considered only at revaluations. Airports have received significant support for their fixed costs during this period from the airport and ground operations support scheme, and the Chancellor announced in his recent Budget a further six months’ support up to the equivalent of their business rate liabilities for the first half of 2021, subject to certain conditions under the £4 million cap.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the guidance for councils would be published. As we heard earlier this week, we absolutely recognise the importance of getting the guidance published as soon as we can. We want to do that, and I will clarify one of the points that was raised on Tuesday. We have shared the draft guidance with the LGA, officers from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation. We are now discussing the parameters of the scheme with them in order to help shape the final document, so I offer the Committee some reassurance on that. We have done that in parallel here, to try to ensure that we can get it published as quickly as we can. We will absolutely be working with local government to help ratepayers apply for the new relief as soon as they can once the Bill has passed and they have set up their schemes.
Jeff Smith
Does the Minister accept that there is absolutely no reason to wait for the Bill to pass to put the scheme in place? The Government could distribute the £1.5 billion today, if they wanted.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we are still working on the final points in the guidance. The LGA made the point that it desperately wants to be involved in the drawing up of the guidance and in setting the framework and parameters. That is what we are doing and going through now. As soon as we are ready to do that, of course that is what we will do. We are as keen as everybody for the support to be available to local authorities, so as soon as the Bill has passed, we will ensure that we get the support out to councils and businesses as soon as we can. It is a point that has been well made by the Opposition and by people who contributed written evidence and who participated in the session earlier this week and the Second Reading debate, so we are acutely aware of that point.
Another temporal question was raised on Tuesday that the hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify today—whether the legislation will prevent councils from awarding rate relief after the end of September. I want to offer some reassurance on that, and I will perhaps do so in writing after the Committee as well, just to provide some more detail. There is a requirement in primary legislation that certain decisions on the use of a discretionary rate relief scheme must be made by a local authority by the end of the September following the year in question. For the year 2021, that deadline is fast approaching. Given the scrutiny that a Bill of this nature deserves, we do not expect councils to be in a position to award the whole £1.5 billion relief scheme in respect of liabilities for 2020-21. Instead, we can simply ensure that the scheme will apply to 2021-22 liabilities, and local authorities have over a year until the deadline for that period. Ratepayers will still be receiving rate relief, which councils can award on the basis of how ratepayers have been affected by covid-19, but it will be against their liability for this year rather than last year, so we can still ensure that ratepayers quickly receive support against their rates bill once the Bill receives Royal Assent. As that is a slightly technical point, perhaps I will put that in writing before Report, so that it can be scrutinised properly by the Opposition and we can discuss the point further.
I appreciate that concerns have been raised about VOA funding. I agree that the Bill will help the VOA to focus on delivering its important functions, such as the wider 2023 revaluation. The Treasury is working closely with the VOA and HMRC to understand the resourcing requirements. We have provided the VOA with £22 million to update its IT systems, enabling it to become more flexible, more efficient and more resilient, and we have provided £31 million to support the revaluation in 2023. Of course, we will continue to assess the VOA’s funding in the spending review as well.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the pressures on local government and the new burdens that the Bill could create. It is right that when the Government ask councils to deliver new activity we consider new burdens. I assure the Committee that we will work closely with local government to consider, and assess the funding of, any new burdens in the administration of the relief as they arise. We have tried to do that in good faith throughout the pandemic, and will continue to ensure that that is the case.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his contribution. I am happy to try to clarify any further points that he wants to raise between now and Report. I look forward to continuing discussions throughout the passage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Unfit directors of dissolved companies: Great Britain
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Duty to report on directors of dissolved companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and during each three month period thereafter.
(2) Each report under subsection (1) must include the number of former directors of dissolved companies the Insolvency Service has—
(a) investigated; and
(b) disqualified
both in the three-month period prior to the report being published, and in total since section 1 came into force.”
This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to report the number of former directors of dissolved companies investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service.
New clause 3—Effectiveness of provisions on former directors of dissolved companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of one year after the day on which sections 2 and 3 come into force, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 2 and 3 of this Act.
(2) The assessment must include consideration of—
(a) the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives;
(b) the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to the investigation and disqualification of directors; and
(c) possible related changes to law and policy.”
This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in section 2 and 3 of this Act.
Luke Hall
I am grateful to the Committee for its useful input in the discussion so far. I welcome the opportunity to talk further about our insolvency regime, which is an international leader on speed and efficiency, returns to creditors and cost. A strong insolvency regime must be backed up by efficient and robust enforcement to tackle wrongdoing, and the UK has a first-class regime to deal with regulatory breaches, whether through criminal proceedings or disqualifying individuals who have shown themselves unfit to act in the management of a limited company.
It will not escape the Committee’s notice that the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 contains provisions that allow disqualification proceedings to be sought in live companies and in insolvent companies but not in dissolved companies. That is a loophole that has been exploited by unscrupulous company directors, and we heard many examples of that earlier in the week. For example, we have seen many instances where a company is dissolved in order to dump debts, such as those owed to the taxman or employment tribunal awards, only for a new company to pop up, running with the same directors in the same building, sometimes even with the same staff.
The process of allowing one company with debts to drop off the register and starting a new company without the burden of debt is sometimes known as phoenixism. We heard many worrying examples of that earlier this week and on Second Reading. We are therefore seeking to increase the scope of the CDDA to make it possible to challenge director misconduct, even where a company has been struck off the register and dissolved. The clause amends various sections of the CDDA, which will improve the enforcement regime by applying investigation and disqualification processes to former directors of dissolved companies.
On the whole, the amendments apply similar processes and standards to those cases as already exist for disqualification of directors of insolvent companies. That includes the option for a former director of a dissolved company to provide a disqualification undertaking to the Secretary of State rather than face court proceedings. Clause 2(2) amends section 6 of the CDDA to give a power to the court to make a disqualification order on the application of the Secretary of State where it is satisfied that a person was a company director of a dissolved company, and that their conduct makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company. It also clarifies which court has jurisdiction to make an order for the winding up of the company.
Clause 2(3) amends section 7 of the CDDA. It sets out that, where an application for a disqualification order against a former director of a dissolved company is made, it must be before the end of the three years, starting with the date of dissolution of the company. That mirrors the situation for insolvent companies, where a disqualification order must be made within three years of the date of insolvency. Clause 2(3) also makes an important amendment to section 7(4) of the CDDA to expand the power of the Secretary of State to investigate director conduct in dissolved companies. The outcome of such investigations will provide the evidence for disqualification proceedings and establish that public interest criteria are met.
Section 8ZA of the CDDA allows for the disqualification of a person where they have exerted influence over another person who has been disqualified as a result of their conduct as a director of an insolvent company. If the court is satisfied that the disqualified person acted under the instructions of another person, it may also disqualify that person on an application made by the Secretary of State under section 8ZB. Clause 2(4) and (5) amend those sections of the CDDA so that a similar application may be made by the Secretary of State where a former director of a dissolved company has been disqualified but acted under the instructions of another person. Again, that mirrors the current position with regard to disqualification in insolvent companies.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the Minister for outlining in some detail the legislation before us and the rationale for clauses 2 and 3 of this short but important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington stated, and as we both outlined at Second Reading, Labour is broadly supportive of the Bill, including the measures to close the dissolution loophole, which are needed to help tackle phoenixism, and which had almost unanimous support in all the oral and written evidence that the Committee received. There was also support for allowing action retrospectively; it is a welcome addition to the insolvency framework.
As the Committee heard from witnesses on Tuesday, unscrupulous directors can cause significant suffering to those who have invested in, or provided loans to, their company. We have also heard that the payment of employment tribunal awards can be affected. Too often, corrupt directors are able to absolve themselves of their financial responsibilities through dissolution, due to the time and money required for creditors to restore the company before being able to take action against it or the directors. As we heard in evidence, the Bill should therefore positively impact on creditor confidence. We also know that the taxpayer is now becoming a victim of this process, and that the action being taken is more limited due to the blunt tools and insufficient powers currently available, as unscrupulous directors seek to avoid paying back covid support loans.
It is therefore welcome that clauses 2 and 3, which deal with Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, remove the requirement for a dissolved company to be restored before the Government can act. The key change being made is that the powers available to the Secretary of State to investigate former directors of insolvent companies will be extended to cover dissolved companies. It will become easier for the Government to investigate the conduct of dissolved companies and, consequently, to seek disqualification orders or undertakings if desired.
However, although the clauses are a positive step, there are a number of concerns, most notably around the resourcing of the Insolvency Service, the Government’s plans and performance in relation to action taken in the investigation and disqualification of directors, and Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the outcomes of the legislation. Those gaps will, in our view, significantly limit the potential effectiveness of the Bill in its efforts to tackle financial corruption—potentially costing creditors, the Government and the public billions of pounds. Labour is calling for new clauses 1 and 3, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, to be added to the Bill to address those gaps.
New clause 1 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House every three months following the passing of the Bill, outlining how many directors have been investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. New clause 3 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill a year after it comes into force. That assessment would consider the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives, the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to the investigation and disqualification of directors, and possible changes to law and policy.
In relation to new clause 1, I will outline some concerns on resourcing for investigations and action, including disqualifications. As Duncan Swift, the former president of R3, highlighted on Tuesday, the Bill could result in the Insolvency Service taking on “10 to 15 times” the number of investigations that it currently undertakes. However, there is no indication in the Bill, or in the Government’s intentions around it, that the Government plan to increase funding and resources at all for the Insolvency Service, let alone by 10 to 15 times, to allow it to cope with that potentially huge increase in workload.
That is despite the fact that R3 members, as identified in its evidence, often report encountering cases showing significant legal breaches by directors that, to their surprise, do not lead to disqualification. Several witnesses have suggested that the Insolvency Service is woefully under-resourced as it is. Without the necessary extra funding and resources for the Insolvency Service, the Bill’s aims of disqualifying unscrupulous directors or seeking undertakings simply will not be met. In fact, the measures introduced by the Bill may come at the expense of what the Insolvency Service is currently able to do in terms of investigating insolvent companies.
On top of that, we know that the Insolvency Service cannot apply to court for the disqualification of a director whose company has been dissolved for three years or more. That means that the Insolvency Service does not just need the extra resources to carry out those additional investigations, but needs to carry them out promptly and within the three-year timeframe. As Dr Tribe summarised on Tuesday, the Insolvency Service
“needs to be properly funded to ensure that this additional disqualification work can happen.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 18, Q29.]
All may go smoothly. There may be no backlog, no issues and no need to review the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its goals, but we need to know that, and Parliament must be able to scrutinise in a timely and effective way. I hope that the Minister will support Labour’s call for new clause 1 to be added to the Bill, because surely this will be a report that he, too, will want to receive. On Second Reading, the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets said that the Government
“will be working with the Insolvency Service to ensure that it has the resources to do its job.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 83.]
Those may have been reassuring words to get us through this week, but we want to be able to see the outcomes of the process and how well the system is working. Surely that is in all our interests, both as parliamentarians and as constituency MPs.
New clause 1 would ensure regular reporting on the number of directors of dissolved companies investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. In doing so, it would provide oversight and scrutiny around the Insolvency Service’s ability to implement the measures in the Bill. It would alert the House to any resourcing issues facing the Insolvency Service and evidence the need for extra funding in order to fulfil the aims of this Bill.
Another significant gap in the Bill is the lack of detail surrounding how the Government plan to act following the potential disqualification of directors. Disqualification itself does not provide measures for repayment so, on its own, it is not enough of a deterrent to prevent directors from acting unscrupulously. As Duncan Swift summarised on Tuesday:
“The serious rogue directors do not see being disqualified as a significant deterrent.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 60, Q96.]
What does represent a deterrent is being held to account for misappropriated assets and having personal liability for actions wrongfully undertaken as a director. Compensation orders are mentioned in the Bill. Since they have been introduced, very few compensation orders have been issued and their effectiveness has been unclear. Insolvency is a tried and tested way of recovering monies owed to creditors. Thousands of insolvency procedures take place every year that return hundreds of millions of pounds to creditors, but these processes are not without time, cost and considerable stress.
In order for the Insolvency Service, the courts and creditors to have clarity over what this Bill means, the Government should address the legislative gap. In order for the Bill to be effective, they must ensure this policy acts as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and allows the aims of this Bill to be met.
That is why Labour has tabled new clause 3, which I am speaking to now. It would ensure that an annual assessment was made of the Bill’s effectiveness in acting as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and at recouping owed monies. It will encourage the consideration of changes to the Bill to aid its effectiveness, making up for the current gaps in the Bill’s detail.
Clauses 2 and 3, which makes the same change to legislation in Northern Ireland, are broadly welcomed by the Labour party. We are pleased that a legal loophole, exploited for too long by unscrupulous directors, will finally be closed, but the Bill does not contain the details and or provide the oversight that Parliament needs to scrutinise its effectiveness and the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That was why we tabled new clauses 1 and 3: to ensure that the Insolvency Service is given the funding it needs to carry out the Bill’s goals, and to see disqualified directors repaying their loans and being held accountable for their liabilities in the most effective way.
I hope that the Committee sees the value of these new clauses and what they bring to the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Luke Hall
I again thank the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached this useful discussion throughout the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the contributions on new clauses 1 and 3, which would require the Secretary of State to make reports every three months to Parliament on the number of directors investigated and disqualified under the provisions in the Bill, and to report their effectiveness after one year.
I reassure the Committee that the Insolvency Service routinely produces insolvency statistics, covering company insolvencies in the UK and individual insolvencies in England and Wales, as well as some of the underlying data alongside that. These are published online, available to everybody, every three months. At the start of the pandemic, the Insolvency Service undertook to provisionally add experimental monthly data releases concerning insolvency numbers. In this way, the statistics could act as an indicator on the pandemic’s impact on insolvencies.
As well as the quarterly releases of insolvency statistics, information about the Insolvency Service’s enforcement activities is published and updated monthly. This data includes the number of companies wound up in the public interest and the number of disqualification orders and undertakings, broken down by the relevant section of the CDDA under which they were sought. Information on the length of the periods of disqualification is included and there is an annual report on the nature of the misconduct being alleged.
The Chair
Mr Grant, would you like to speak on these provisions before I put the Question?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am very grateful for your understanding, Ms Rees, in allowing me to speak. I would like to make some comments on clause 2. I think that the new clauses are good and I hope that the Committee will agree to them.
There is widespread agreement that clause 2, or something very like it, is needed. We have seen only one dissenting submission from anybody, and that was from an individual solicitor. Speaking as a legal layperson, I thought that that submission contained inconsistencies and seemed almost to miss the point of the legislation. Although I respect the right of that individual to express their views, I cannot agree with them.
We already have legislation that gives the Insolvency Service three years to apply for a disqualification order against the director of a company that goes through a full liquidation if it finds evidence of misconduct in the running of the liquidated company. If the director chooses to dissolve the company without going through liquidation first, the Insolvency Service cannot move to have them disqualified from other directorships for misconduct in the running of the dissolved company.
To indicate how untenable that inconsistency is now that it has been identified, I invite the Committee to imagine that the clause we are debating had been included in the Company Directors Disqualification Act right at the beginning. If somebody had come forward with a proposal to change the Act to create a special exemption for directors who deliberately dissolved their company as a way of dodging the consequences of the own misconduct, nobody would have taken it seriously. We would not create a loophole deliberately. The only disappointment I have is that the proposal to close this loophole has taken so long and that there are still far too many other loopholes for criminals to exploit.
I want to repeat a comment I made on Second Reading, and on which I asked a number of the witnesses to comment on Tuesday. The Government rightly point to the increase in phoenix companies that are set up as part of, or immediately after the dissolution of, a dodgy company. A similar abuse can and does take place where the phoenix company is a long-established associate company of the one being dissolved. The abuse does not rely on a new company being set up if the directors have a few handy replacement companies already in the bank, or on the Companies House register.
During the evidence sessions, I asked a number of witnesses if they had any concerns about the retrospective nature of clause 2. It is important to remember, as the Minister has pointed out, that we are not retrospectively outlawing something that was legal at the time; all we are saying that if someone is strongly suspected of having acted improperly or illegally in the past, that misconduct can be properly investigated. We are not even giving additional powers to the regulator to act; we are removing an artificial barrier that should probably never have been there in the first place to allow that investigation.
We heard an interesting range of views from witnesses on the three-year time limit. As the Minister pointed out, that limit applies from the date of dissolution, not the date of misconduct. If, for example, the directors of a company dissolved it in 2019 because they realised that their misconduct of 2015 was beginning to be picked up by the Insolvency Service or anyone else, they would not get away with it. For now, I think it makes sense to retain the three-year limit that applies elsewhere in the original Act, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to extending the limit in future legislation.
In other debates, I have referred to the scandalous way in which Blackmore Bond plc targeted very high-risk investments at people it knew were looking for quite the opposite—a safe place to invest money they could not afford to lose, as they had told the directors of Blackmore Bond. The investors have lost pensions and life savings totalling £46 million. The shareholder directors, Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh, still appear to be doing very nicely indeed, thank you very much.
In 2015, the Insolvency Service, as part of a much bigger investigation into at least one other company, found that through an earlier company called Nunn McCreesh limited liability partnership, the same Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh had been paid nearly £900,000 to identify investors for Capita Oak—an investment scheme that is now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. At the very least, there are major questions about what Nunn and McCreesh did for their £900,000 and about whether it was legal or proper. Perhaps by complete coincidence, also in 2015, Nunn and McCreesh dissolved the limited liability partnership.
Under the existing legislation, the Insolvency Service would not have been able to use any misconduct in the running of Nunn McCreesh llp to apply for disqualification orders against Nunn and McCreesh. It could not have stopped them from setting up the much more lucrative Blackmore Bond in 2016. The Bill still would not allow it to do so because of the three-year time limit. That is one reason I am asking the Minister to consider the three-year limit in future.
At least this legislation means that if another Nunn McCreesh llp comes along now, the Insolvency Service will have one small but important additional weapon in its armoury to stop it. It came too late to stop Blackmore Bond making £46 million by making other people’s money—other people’s life savings and pensions—disappear. Hopefully, the next Blackmore Bond will be stopped in time and that will not happen again.
It took only the briefest of searches this morning to find that Phillip Nunn, one of the directors of Blackmore Bond and Nunn McCreesh, was a director of no fewer than 10 different companies that have been dissolved in the past year. For most of them, the only other director was Patrick McCreesh. I do not know whether Mr Nunn or Mr McCreesh was ever placed under formal investigation for their part in Capita Oak, and I do not know what was in the liquidator’s report that was submitted to the Secretary of State about their conduct, as happens with any insolvency case, but surely the fact that they were able to dissolve the company in 2015 should not make any difference to the investigations to which they can be subjected now or the sanctions they can face if they are found or suspected to be guilty of serious misconduct in the operation of Nunn McCreesh llp or any of their other companies. When I was looking at the activities of Blackmore Bond, one of the other companies with which it went into what was called a strategic partnership led to another of these fascinating spider’s webs of dissolved companies and resurrected companies, one of which has an ultimate owner that is a limited liability partnership registered in England with five partners who appear to be members of the same family—two people of similar age who are the designated partners, and three people about 25 to 30 years younger than them who are partners but not designated. It looks like mum, dad and kids—why not?
According to documents that the senior designated partner certified and submitted to Companies House, which Companies House accepted and still has displayed on its website, one of those younger partners consented to the responsibility of being a partner in that partnership when she was 16 years old. One of them, according to those documents, consented to those responsibilities when she was 14 years old. One of them was 10 years old.
Some of our witnesses referred to the gross inadequacies in the processes of Companies House for checking the documents that are submitted to it. Those documents are being used to demonstrate that a company is genuine and bona fide. Those kinds of thing make it clear to me that while the Bill should be supported today and while the clause should be adopted with or without the related new clauses suggested by the main Opposition party, there are still massive holes in our regulation of companies through the Financial Conduct Authority, Companies House and the register of companies, the Financial Reporting Council and the professional auditing bodies.
Not a single part of the regulatory framework is working properly. Sometimes that is because the regulators are not doing the jobs that they are there to do. Sometimes it is because they are not resourced and do not have the firepower to compete with some of what they are faced with. Sometimes it is because the legislation we have provided them with is not fit for purpose. When those three things come together in so many regulators at the same time, it is no wonder, as one of our witnesses pointed out, that the United Kingdom is seen as one of the softest of soft touches for fraudulent companies. An entire company can be set up for no other reason than to steal people’s money.
I welcome the Bill, I certainly support clauses 2 and 3, and I will recommend that the Bill be supported when it returns to the House on Third Reading, but it is only a tiny step on a much longer journey. I urge the Minister and his colleagues in Government not to see the Bill as the last step, but to see it as the first in making the United Kingdom, whatever format it might take in the future, and all our four nations no-go areas for the scammers, chancers and charlatans for whom we have been far too soft a touch for far too long.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his powerful contribution; he is extremely well informed on these matters. I thank him also for his support and take into account his comments on the three-year limit. I am grateful for that.
The Government are certainly not pretending that the work stops here. However, the Bill is a positive step forward in the right direction and it is taking action. I will raise the points the hon. Gentleman has made today with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent, commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Hall
The clause covers technical areas such as the Bill’s territorial extent, the commencement and the short title. Clause 4(1) sets out that the business rates measure relating to material changes of circumstance in clause 1 extends to England and Wales. However, the application of clause 1 is to England, meaning that in effect it applies only to England. As I said earlier, the Welsh Government yesterday announced their intention to include in the Bill provisions applying to Wales. We will work closely with them on that and take the necessary steps.
Clause 4(2) confirms that the extent of the directors disqualification measure is the same as for the provisions being amended, which means that clause 2 extends to Great Britain and clause 3 to Northern Ireland. The effect is that the measure extends to the whole UK.
Jeff Smith
I thank the Minister. Obviously, this is a technical clause that we have no problem with. I just want to make this point again: the extent and the commencement are important, but the distribution of the £1.5 billion to businesses that desperately need help does not rest on the passing of the Bill and its clauses. The commencement of the help to businesses could start as soon as the guidance is ready.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is why we are so keen that we work at pace with the LGA and others to make sure that the guidance is in the right place to distribute so that we can get the support out as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
In the light of the Minister’s response, I will not press it today, but we would be interested in further discussions on the review that the Minister has outlined and we will return to this issue on Report.
New Clause 2
Effectiveness of non-domestic rating lists provisions
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of one year after the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.
(2) The assessment must include consideration of—
(a) the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives;
(b) the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to coronavirus support for business and business rates; and
(c) possible related changes to law and policy.”—(Jeff Smith.)
This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Hall
I put on record my thanks to the Committee, the Clerks of the Committee for their work, the Opposition for being so constructive, and all hon. Members. I also thank the Opposition for wishing me a very happy birthday. If I am honest with myself, I have never had this many people at one of my birthdays, so it is an absolute pleasure. I thank the Committee for its work in the consideration of this important Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Covid-19: Household Debt
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members, particularly those participating virtually, that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room—in other words, do not do anything you do not want to be seen on camera.
If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has asked that masks be worn in Westminster Hall.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on household debt.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The effects of covid-19 have been uniquely lopsided. We hear a lot about people making savings during lockdown; the Bank of England apparently estimates that at £150 billion overall and says that many people are able to pay off debt using income they have saved. That is all very well, but it glosses over the at least 11 million people—perhaps the most vulnerable in society—whose debt has increased because of covid-19. That is 11 million people who, by March 2021 according to StepChange, had built up £25 billion in arrears and debt to pay.
About 4.3 million people are now behind on bills such as council tax, rent or fuel, and the average debt is higher too. According to independent polling, 14 million people have suffered an income shock over the course of the pandemic, with almost half of those people turning to crisis borrowing to cover essential expenditure. The Money and Pension Service found that 9 million people have had to borrow money in the last year to buy food and to pay essential bills—whether via credit cards, overdrafts or, if they are very lucky, family and friends. According to Standard Life, one in 10 of all households were facing serious financial difficulty, with the majority in arrears on at least one bill.
Loss of income is, of course, at the heart of the increase in debt. StepChange says that more than 19 million adults experienced some loss of income during the pandemic. The package of help from the Government has been a lifeline for so many in crisis, because of lost incomes and loss of jobs. However, welcome as they are, in many ways they are going to simply delay the inevitable because they are expiring or due to expire in September. When the various schemes come to an end, we can only expect the situation to get worse. Some advice agencies are talking about a tsunami of debt. It is a highly dramatic image, but maybe not far from the truth.
We like to think that covid-19 has been a great leveller—that we are all in it together—but the fact is that the increased debt burden has had a disproportionate impact on the least well off and most vulnerable in society. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that the poorest 20% of the population saw a decline of £170 per month in their savings during the pandemic, while research from Citizens Advice showed that young people, people with dependent children, black, Asian and minority ethnic people, disabled people and renters were far more at risk of falling behind on essential bills such as council tax repayments. People living in places with average earnings lower than £28,000 a year—such as my own constituency in the Wigan borough, where average earnings are just over £18,000—are, according to the Centre for Cities, significantly more likely to be indebted than the more affluent areas in the south. How are the Government proposing to deal with this disparity?
Families with children have been perhaps the hardest hit of all. Again according to StepChange, one in five parents who has suffered a hit to their income from covid says that they or their children have had to skip meals, ration utilities, or go without some appropriate clothing for the weather. That debt also comes from increased expenditure: families with children, especially those whose children have been at home rather than school, found themselves spending more money, not less, on food and other essentials.
Poorer households who spend the majority of their money on essentials did not experience the drop in non-essential expenditures that others reported during the pandemic, and these people quite often pay more for their goods and services than the better-off. As Fair By Design has demonstrated, a clear poverty premium is in operation. It has calculated that this costs the average low-income household £490 a year and, for more than one in 10 low-income households, at least £780 a year.
Low-income households have also been more impacted by another covid-19 trend, namely the move away from cash. Some commentators speak as if its demise is a wholly good thing, but the fact is that many millions of people rely on cash for daily transactions, especially those on low incomes who see it as an excellent budgeting tool. I am pleased that the Treasury is now consulting on giving the public the legal right to access cash a reasonable distance from their home. I will be interested to see how that will work, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) will have much more to say about the issue. I also welcomed the announcement in the Budget that £3.8 million will be available to fund a no-interest loan scheme. Again, the devil will be in the detail, but the fact is that such a scheme needs to be rolled out quickly if it is to help with the fallout from covid-19.
I have been a vocal critic of the harm done by both payday lenders and rent to own. More recently, we have seen the rise of a new product—buy now, pay later—whose products, I note, have been rebranded as a naughty little treat for women. Research from Which? has disproved the myth that the biggest users of this type of credit are young single women: it found that the biggest group are women with children who have other forms of credit debt and who are using it to buy essential items. The Financial Conduct Authority has said that it will regulate this industry, too: the sooner it does so, the better. I urge the Minister to look at the remit of the FCA to allow it to be proactive when new products emerge that may cause consumer harm, rather than having to wait until harm has been demonstrated. We also need to encourage a savings culture—there could be a whole other debate on how we encourage people with low and fluctuating incomes to save.
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the need to regulate the bailiff industry. With debt to both national and local government increasing during the pandemic, now is the time to tackle this issue. The Government should lead by example by reforming the way in which they recover debt such as council tax arrears, so that local authorities put a clear focus on affordability and fair treatment. We need nothing less than a new debt management Bill to write off historic tax credit debts, embed fairness principles in statute, and establish a bailiff regulator with statutory powers to protect financially vulnerable individuals. I hope the Minister agrees with that.
There are some measures that could be taken to reduce the amount and impact of debt. Enforcement action should be halted for debts built up as a result of coronavirus; non-priority benefit deductions from universal credit should cease; and plans should be brought forward to extend repayments over a longer period, as well as making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent in order to give people the certainty and security of having enough to live on. Does the Minister agree that removing any money from those on the lowest incomes would inevitably create more debt and hardship?
I also believe that now is the time for a full holistic review of all debt solutions to be undertaken. We need a simple, straight-forward system that, crucially, ensures that people in debt are able to access the solution that best suits their needs. The system has grown in a piecemeal way; we need to fully reform it.
Breathing Space is really welcome, but the 60 days should be flexible to allow people more time to recover if they have reduced income or debts because of covid-19. Other measures that could help include targeted debt write-down of priority arrears—rent, council tax and so on—and longer-term protections so that households can safely address covid-related debts over a more sustainable timeframe.
Some have suggested establishing a special Government fund to provide grants to pay off and cancel all unavoidable debt accrued by households during the lockdown period. Reset The Debt argues that such a fund would make the money already spent on economic recovery worth it for many families, and would release them to be more economically productive in the future. StepChange suggests a covid rent debt fund specifically for private renters, to ensure that the Government honour their pandemic promise that no renter will lose their home. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on both schemes.
We also need to better fund our advice agencies, which expect to see an enormous increase in demand for their services once furlough ends. They are now struggling with a serious income shortfall because people have not been visiting them while measures have been in place to mitigate the problems with finance, but those people are building up problems for the future. Such advice agencies offer free debt advice services based on a comprehensive assessment of a person’s situation and then provide practical help and support for however long it is needed. The increase in funding from the Money and Pensions Service is welcome, but applying contract rules rather than grant funding will impose VAT and remove most of that benefit. Could that be looked at again, as it appears to be giving with one hand and taking back with the other?
It would be a scandal if the Government’s package of support merely delayed the onset of unmanageable debt. If we truly want to help struggling people to get back to normal life when the crisis is over, we cannot simply abandon them when support ends.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]
Just last month, the financial service provider Auden Financial published its “Pandemic Penalty” report, which contained a number of troubling statistics. Some 50% of its clients now have savings of less than £100. The report found that single-parent families are the most likely to resort to short-term loans, and a third of them rely on food banks. The 18-to-35 age group is the most likely to apply for short-term credit, but also the most likely to be rejected. Only half those in financial difficulty have actually made contact with money advice providers. Surely those who turn down those borrowers need to do a better job of signposting them to the help that they clearly need.
All those statistics show just what an endemic problem debt is in this country as we reach, I hope, the end of the covid pandemic. It is no wonder that people find themselves in financial crisis when the unexpected strikes—from a fridge no longer working to a family bereavement. I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate and setting out such a broad spectrum of views and considerations.
Debt advisers do a fantastic job, as the hon. Lady said. I welcome the increased funding from the Money and Pensions Service, but I am also aware that debt advisers may not have the specialist knowledge needed to interrogate tax debt and to ascertain whether or not debt that an individual is informed about is actually owed in the first place. TaxAid and Tax Help for Older People, two charities that help with tax cases, looked at the data from 66 cases on their system from August 2019 to just before the covid pandemic started. The total debt for those 66 cases when they first approached TaxAid was more than £230,000. After Tax Aid had done its work, only £46,000 of that debt remained: only 25% of what was originally cited.
To me, that illustrates powerfully the point that checking that a debt is owing in the first place should be the first step. However, that requires specialist tax knowledge rather than general debt knowledge, which is relevant to the latter stage once the actual amount of the debt is established. It is all very well for us to have the finest system in the world for arranging debt repayments and dealing with debt, but why do we not aspire to similar excellence in checking whether debt is due in the first place?
Like the hon. Member for Makerfield, I welcome the introduction of the Breathing Space initiative, but, as the We Are Debt Advisers network has observed, 60 days may not be long enough to exhaust all other potential sources of income, particularly when we can see that Department for Work and Pensions decisions around extra benefits, such as the personal independence payment, are taking far longer than 60 days. Can the Government look again at whether they can be more flexible about that 60-day period, to recognise when people are in the process of securing extra income?
May we look again at debt relief orders? As a former Minister for legal matters, I know that such legal instruments can be made available and charged for only on a cost recovery basis. Some £90 to obtain a debt relief order is a burden on those already in debt. I would welcome a proper Government review of whether that truly represents nothing more than cost recovery.
On the issue of the no-interest loans, which I very much welcome—not least because of my interest in reforming local welfare assistance schemes—may I ask what progress has been made? In my view, this should not be rocket science. The original idea came from Australia, where Good Shepherd Australia has been operating microfinance for many years. To introduce it here must be a matter of cut and paste, rather than starting from the beginning to build a programme from scratch. This type of project is important, because the cost of replacing white goods is terrible for many families, who fall into debt as a consequence. We need only listen to the Liverpool-based End Furniture Poverty campaign and look at the pilot schemes that Fair4All Finance are launching to tackle what they term “appliance poverty”.
With so many people living in unfurnished, private rented properties and on low incomes, over 1 million people are lacking either a cooker, fridge freezer or washing machine. No cooker may mean a focus on costly takeaway meals for those who are time poor and no washing machine might mean a £7 trip to the launderette for a single load of washing. Getting into debt to pay for these essentials is simply not the answer.
If we are to tackle the issue of problem debt more fundamentally, we must also address the tools that people choose to manage that debt through the various forms of credit open to them, often at the highest cost to those with the greatest debts. That means the Government have to react promptly to the Woolard review, which looked at the wide picture of financial resilience, rather than just the promise of regulation for buy now, pay later that much of the media fixed on.
That wider objective should be helping those in debt out of it, and preventing those just about managing from going into debt in the first place. As Theodora Hadjimichael, chief executive of Responsible Finance, said recently,
“Withdrawals from the subprime market mean a vacuum in access to credit. Without responsible lenders stepping in to fill it, the options available to individuals who need to plug a gap in income or pay for one off expenses may become increasingly dire”.
That is very much the situation I believe we are looking at. At the moment, the least well-off are disproportionately penalised within a poverty premium that sees them subjected to higher insurance premiums and a much smaller range of affordable credit products, if any at all exist for their particular financial circumstances.
I do not believe the answer is a whack-a-mole approach that knocks out every credit option one by one. People on whatever level of income should be able to choose to pay for goods using credit, including buy now, pay later. The challenge is to ensure that those products are transparent and affordable. We need to move the focus to the behaviour of the borrower over a lifetime—looking at all their borrowing, rather than just a single test of their credit risk or a single affordability assessment. People might be able to afford a loan at a particular point in time, but then be hit by a family bereavement, which ends up changing their entire financial situation. Doing that requires much speedier progress on open banking than we have seen so far and for our lenders to see a wider picture of spending habits.
We also need greater diversity in the market. Community, voluntarist solutions exist but cannot be scaled up quickly. The arguments get quite techy quite quickly—community development, financial institutions, FinTech and how the Financial Conduct Authority regulates the sector. It is much harder to get political purchase here because it gets so complex. MPs get stuck into a “something must be done” rut that expresses itself in attempts to stop things rather than starting better alternatives.
The Government have introduced initiatives to help people build up their savings, but the payroll-based Help to Save scheme is not as transformative as it could be and perhaps needs supercharging. There are a numerous savings schemes for those on lower incomes, but all are voluntary and do not have people nudged into them in the way that occurred with workplace pensions. Ministers have spoken of replicating the contracting-in model of the workplace pensione scheme to create what are known as sidecar savings schemes for those in work. What is actually happening with that?
We need to offer a route to asset accumulation for everyone, and those in poverty three years in three should have access to the same nudge as everybody else to start building their own safety net, which would be their first recourse if misfortune struck. Government support for that nudge would reduce demands on other streams of Government welfare assistance and create a pathway out of indebtedness. So yes, we need to deal with today’s covid-related debt, but we should use this opportunity to fashion new approaches that enable a better credit market and better systems to deal with those who will inevitably, sadly, fall into debt. We will never have a world without debt, but we can help to prevent people from falling into debt, help people out of that debt, and above all create a world without destitution. That should always be our first goal as a responsible Government.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has done on these issues for many years.
I agree with every word from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard); I fear that consensus will break out in the House on the need to act. Whether we have different ideas on how we should act may be another matter, but I think the concern that debt has been the quiet winner of the covid crisis is widely shared across the House. The two excellent previous speeches reflect that. The talk of people saving more may well be true, but we know that, in our communities, many people are drowning, not waving. Frankly, they were already in deep water before the pandemic hit.
The two previous speakers gave some excellent statistics on the debt in our country. I am mindful that StepChange tells us that more than 19 million adults have experienced a loss of income during the pandemic, while 11 million people have built up £25 billion of arrears and debt—not because they have been sat at home ordering consumer goods to entertain themselves, but to pay for essentials. As we know, those debts are not equally distributed within our communities. In particular, renters, those from minority ethnic communities, and women and mothers, as Women’s Budget Group research shows, have borne the brunt of the debt crisis that is building up in our communities. In April, a quarter of mothers from black and ethnic minority community backgrounds reported that they were struggling to feed their children, and 32% of young women said that they were finding it hard to pay for essentials.
So, the question for us all is, what are people doing to make ends meet? Some 26% of those affected by coronavirus have borrowed money to make ends meet, most commonly through credit cards or an overdraft facility, and a million of those people have used some form of high-cost credit product. Crucially, Citizens Advice research also shows that people from shielded groups are four times as likely as others to be behind on utility bills such as council tax.
Understanding the nature of the credit tsunami that is coming towards us due to the debt that underpins our economy and underpins the response to credit is vital not only for people’s individual lives, but for our public sector. The reality is that research increasingly paints a grim picture for many of our constituents. Some 48% of consumers told the FCA review of high-cost credit that they had to cut back on other spending to make their loan bills, while 37% said they missed payments on their rent or mortgage or on utilities, with council tax the top payment that many are forgoing. Some 16% of customers reported that their most recent borrowing was to repay debt that they had already taken on. People were being drawn into a spiral whereby they were borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, from Paul to pay Sarah, and from Sarah to pay Peter.
The truth is that this is not a new phenomenon in our country. We have always had an economy that was increasingly reliant on consumer debt, and we have always had millions of people for whom that reliance was toxic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield set out so well, it is very expensive to be poor in this country. Credit cards and high-cost credit, whatever form it takes, are expensive for people on low incomes. Indeed, a sub-prime credit card costs around £200 more a year, and personal loans cost around £500 more a year. The issue is not just about the credit that people can access, but about the way utilities are sold. Being on the best energy pre-payment tariff could still be £131 more expensive than the best online-only tariff.
We must not be complacent—I know the Minister is not—and we must not encourage a consumer spending bubble. I urge the Treasury to change tack and be like the Grinch, but for good cause, owing to the problems in our communities. The debt advice services tell us that they have not yet seen hundreds of thousands of people coming to them, but we know it takes time for people to get to the point when they admit that they need help. The true impact of the pandemic on debt advice is yet to be seen, although we are already seeing some incredibly worrying trends. The Financial Wellness Group tells us that around 24% of the customers it has advised on utility debts each owed about £1,000 in arrears, but that has risen to £2,000 over the last year. We can see that when people seek help, they are already in a position whereby it is much more difficult to help them. In particular, they flag up housing costs.
I recognise the point about incomes made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, but I represent a community in London—supposedly an affluent area—that has the 10th-highest level of child poverty in the country due to the cost of housing and of keeping a roof over people’s heads. We must focus on the poverty that we see in our communities and on the impact it has on people’s spending. With the eviction ban ending, with no end in sight for high rents and with no action taken on them, it is clear that people will struggle to manage the cost of trying to stay in the community where their children go to school and where they can be as close as possible to whatever work they can get, especially if they have experienced unemployment during the epidemic. Indeed, the Financial Wellness Group tells us that more than one in three customers to whom it has provided free debt advice have had negative disposable incomes—their priority living costs exceed their income. For many of those people, it is about housing costs.
Like others, I welcome the Breathing Space process, but I believe we need to have a much more fundamental rethink of how we help people to manage their finances and how we put consumers front and centre in what is often an unfair fight. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys about not taking a whack-a-mole approach, but I hope he will forgive me if I take a bite out of some legal loan sharks that I have been concerned about and spoken about to the Minister for some years now—the “buy now, pay later” industry, which has been one of the overall winners in the pandemic.
Since the pandemic started, there has been a massive increase in people using “buy now, pay later”, because they have been able to do online shopping. It has even been suggested that £1 in every £4 spent last Christmas was “buy now, pay later”. Several years ago, few of us had heard much about that industry. It is now huge.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, the impression being given is that the issue is all about fast fashion and young women buying too many pairs of shoes, but the brutal reality coming from the research is that it is not about that at all. People are using the options provided by websites to make ends meet because there is too much month at the end of their money. In particular, families are suffering and having to use that form of credit. As my hon. Friend said, the Which? research is incredibly compelling. People are using “buy now, pay later” to access credit at a stressful and challenging time in their life—for example, when they face redundancy, or when they might not have been able to access help because they are one of the 3 million excluded in our country, in particular those who have children to keep clothed, fed and warm.
Missing a credit bill or payment can be a major life event. The odds of using “buy now, pay later” go up by about a third when someone is made redundant, has a baby or has to move because they can no longer afford to live in their home. We know that, as a result, those people’s credit records are affected. We know they have been referred to debt collection agencies and that they have experienced mental distress. We know that it does not have to be that way.
I welcome the fact that, over the past year, the debate has changed from the idea that this is somehow just a new wacky way to use the internet to shop more simply to a recognition of the damage and the danger that this form of credit, which is unregulated—and still is unregulated today—represents. The FCA report was clear about that.
We know from Citizens Advice that almost 40% of people who have used “buy now, pay later” did so without realising, as a lot of the retailers push people to use that as the first option on their sites because they are officially paying the fees for it. Almost the same number of people thought it was not proper borrowing and really did not understand what they were signing up for. If we consider the research from the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which shows that 3 million people with mental health problems have found it much harder to control their online spending since lockdown, in part because of the design of online retail sites, the need for urgent action grows ever stronger. As I have repeatedly said to the Minister, we have to learn the lesson of the payday lending industry. We did not act quickly enough, so even now we are seeing millions of people who still have problems as a result of borrowing seven or eight years ago through payday lenders.
The public know that we need to act because they do not believe the adverts. They know this is a problem. Indeed, the Hastee Workplace Wellbeing Study showed that 59% of workers had applied for high-cost credit knowing that they would struggle with repayments, but feeling that they had little option. Yet over the past couple of months, rather than the industry recognising its responsibility to its consumers and recognising the support from across the House that the Government would have for regulation, we have seen it simply changing the wording. Such entities no longer call themselves “credit”. They call themselves “a money management tool”. They offer debt advice themselves. It really is turkeys talking to us about how going vegan at Christmas is a good idea. The industry is moving quicker than the Government. That is why I urge the Minister, when he knows he has cross-party support and when he has the evidence, that there should be no further delay in regulating those companies on the issue.
We need to tackle the way in which the companies see affordability. It is clear from the evidence that their definitions of affordability are not ones that we accept in other industries. We need to challenge the product design and how those companies are evolving so quickly to evade what is commonplace evidence about credit regulation—many of the things the Advertising Standards Authority has tried to pick them up on. However, they are moving quicker than Government. We need to make sure that we have a proportionate regulatory process.
One of the things I am extremely concerned about is hearing Ministers suggest that somehow these companies would not have to follow the same rules around credit regulation as other companies, as if they were special and as if they were not as bad as some others. There are two things about that. I hope the Minister will set out for us why he thinks there might be exemptions. What particular elements of our consumer regulation would he not apply to “buy now, pay later” industries? Why does he think that would not create a race to the bottom across the consumer credit industry, as companies variously tried to argue that they were not the bad guys ripping off our constituents? Has he spoken to the Competition and Markets Authority about this? Setting out a situation whereby we allow companies to pick and choose which regulations they abide by is not going to help our constituents.
On that point, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield that we need to review the FCA. The failure to act quickly enough on Wonga, BrightHouse and Amigo Loans is an example of why we need the regulator to be better. Too often, the Financial Ombudsman Service has intervened on behalf of our constituents, rather than the regulator, which has been working with the companies. It is right to review now the FCA and whether it is working effectively, when people are without the compensation they are due from those companies, many of which have gone bust. Some people are not going to get the compensation they are entitled to, but they are also being chased by the creditors of those companies because they owe the companies money. Something is fundamentally wrong in that balance.
Finally, I again agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys that we need to ensure that there are good credit options, which is why I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues—not just in the Treasury, but in local government—about our credit union movement, which is on its knees as a result of the pandemic. As a proud Co-op MP, as well as Labour, I believe that social finance initiatives are critical to helping people out of this crisis. Minister, the people who are drowning, not waving, need us to offer more than a life raft such as Breathing Space. They need us to deal with all these legal loan sharks, which are circling them and pulling them down—once and for all, in truth. The Minister will have my support, and I know the support of Members across the House, if he takes that robust, proactive approach, but right now all we can see is more fins in the waters ahead.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It might help Members to know that five Back Benchers want to get in before I have to call the Front Benchers at half-past the hour; if people keep their remarks to five minutes or less, we will get everyone in.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing today’s debate.
Being British, we do not tend to talk much about debt, or money issues at all, but I showed an early interest in the subject by explaining to my first primary school teacher that my parents were worried about their overdraft—I think my parents were most surprised to have that discussion at school.
Debt in whatever form is a worry. I have direct personal experience of it, and of the invaluable support available from charities such as StepChange and from our churches through organisations such as Christians Against Poverty. I have a maths degree, yet when I lost my business, I still needed help to sort through creditors, understand which bills really were essential, properly to sort out my budgeting and to get my finances back on track.
As the pandemic has progressed, our understanding of exponential growth has also improved. One suspects that this is the same growth rate for both the number of our constituents in debt and the debt they carry. I already have constituents being evicted because of rent arrears and, as there is no temporary accommodation in North Devon due to the surge in the number of holiday lets, the nearest is up to 100 miles away in Bristol. That is clearly unacceptable, as local people will be uprooted from their communities.
Debts have built up where rent or council tax has not been paid, and through credit cards and overdrafts being used to buy everyday items to make ends meet. Far too many families do not have savings for a rainy day, and the pandemic has been positively torrential. As a former maths teacher, I find alarming the number of people who do not understand compound interest or who are unable to budget, which I think stems from not having enough financial education at any stage of the school curriculum.
Given the scale of the issues with which so many families living in our constituencies are dealing with, we need to put extra resource in debt management and give people and companies more time to get their businesses back up and running after the last year and a half of restrictions. Although we did an excellent job deploying extra staff to help to get those who needed it on to universal credit at the start of the pandemic, I worry that we have not seen a comparable increase in the number of debt counsellors in our excellent citizens advice bureaux, for example, so that new claimants could turn their finances around.
While the focus is rightly on getting people back to work, we need to recognise the level of debt that they might have built up during their time not working. Many vacancies are becoming available for jobs that might not pay enough to cover that additional debt on top of a family’s cost of living. Many people have had to retrain and are starting again. We should encourage them back to work by doing everything we can to help them to spread out their repayments and balance their books. Many people who moved on to universal credit during the pandemic will have also found that they have historical tax credit debts, which they now have to repay, along with any advance they may have received ahead of their first universal credit payment.
Universal credit is a working benefit, so many claimants are working, and while additional hours might now become available for some families, for others the numbers do not add up. Although I have heard and understand all the arguments as to why the £20 temporary uplift to universal credit will end in September, I hope the Minister will have some explanation as to how families who already cannot make ends meet are supposed to do so when it goes. For many families who are unable to work, the uplift may represent 20% of their weekly income. How many people have household budgets that will tolerate a 20% drop in income?
The pandemic has already produced a health crisis, and the debt crisis it is generating cannot simply be brushed away by us hoping that everyone can work their way out of it. Many can and will, but debt accumulates. The impact on mental health is devastating, but the relief of resolution is immense. I urge anyone worried about debt to seek advice as soon as they can. I did not become an MP to see families in my North Devon constituency and across the country become destitute. Levelling up, to my mind, is about ensuring that everyone, in every community, has a fair chance to get ahead and that our economy raises the standard of living for everyone. I fully recognise how much the Government have already spent and the work undertaken by the Treasury team to save businesses and jobs. We are now a nation in quite a lot of debt, but we know it will not be repaid immediately. With so many families in the same position, can they not be afforded the same luxury?
Debt and poverty are about families and people. It is not about the billions we have already spent or how much it will cost to give those people a leg-up; it is about doing the right thing to help those families to build back better. The Minister knows as well as I, albeit on a macro level, that debt cannot be repaid if outgoings continue to exceed income. We cannot allow bigger gaps to open up in our society. That is not levelling up, which the Government set out to do. I hope we can still deliver.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for the securing this important debate and for her brilliant contribution.
Although the Government trumpet the billions spent so far during the pandemic on support such as on furlough and business support grants, we all know that millions have been excluded from support, or worse, have lost their livelihoods. As each day goes by, many fall further and further into debt. As we have heard, StepChange estimates that between the start of the pandemic and March this year, 11 million people built up £25 billion of arrears and debt. Unsustainable household debt is not just devastating for those involved; it damages the economy. Economic activity declines as households in debt cut back their spending, and the banking system is affected when there are loan defaults. Without a clear covid recovery plan that tackles the household debt balloon, our ability to recover economically from the pandemic will be in peril.
I will outline briefly a few elements that I would like the Minister to consider. For immediate support to repay council tax and rent debt, the Jubilee Debt Campaign and other organisations advocate providing grants directly to households to help clear rent debt and council tax arrears. I agree with other speakers that the £20 uplift in universal credit must be maintained and should be extended to those on legacy benefits. There must be an emergency grant for the millions who have been excluded from any Government support and complete parity with the extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. Payments for those excluded should also be backdated.
To manage long-term debt, the Government must first remove barriers to insolvency procedures such as debt relief orders. There should also be fair debt write-down. Many lenders sell on their problem debts for a fraction of their value, only for debt collectors to enforce them at their full value, which places debtors under increased and unnecessary pressure. The Government could tackle that by creating a consumer version of UK Asset Resolution, the public finance company that was set up to purchase problem debts from the banks during the financial crash. Such a public vehicle would allow the offloading of many problem debts, to be refinanced at affordable rates for borrowers. Only the Government can borrow at low interest rates to make that happen effectively.
Finally, is the option of a debt jubilee must be examined —writing off some debts for households and businesses that will simply never be able to repay them, even at more affordable rates. Even former Chancellor George Osborne has called for all coronavirus emergency debt taken out by small and micro-businesses to be forgiven. In practice, that would need to be carefully and strictly limited to specific types of problem debt. An example of how it could work is if a lender decided that an outstanding loan was simply not going to be repaid, they could discharge the debt and be offered a tax break in return.
The Government must heed the warning signs. Responding to the growing covid debt crisis is not just morally the right thing to do, but essential if we are to have any chance of rebuilding our economy as the pandemic ends.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for securing this important and timely debate.
I am not alone in seeing the impact of covid-19 on household debt in my mailbag and through surgeries. I suspect I am also not alone in this place in seeing the divergence between those who have managed over the past year to cut their costs and increase their savings and those who are just about managing, who now find themselves in an even more perilous position. Data from the Office for National Statistics backs that up, with evidence that some households, particularly those with low incomes, have run down their savings over the past 12 to 18 months and increased their debt during the pandemic. We have to be keenly aware of that divergence as we emerge from covid.
As I walk around Barrow, Dalton or Ulverston in my constituency, I see the households that have spent some of the past year fixing up their gardens and houses—I have to say that I am a little jealous of them—and those who have allowed their houses to fall into disrepair. Of course, it is no official measure, but it is clear that in the same streets we are seeing families rubbing up against each other, some of whom are thriving and some of whom are struggling. Renters, parents, carers, disabled people and many of those who shielded over the past year are the people we must ensure are not left behind as we move through covid. We must be ready to ensure that that schism is not permitted to widen further or their debt burden to increase even more.
I pay credit to the Government for their significant efforts to support families through the pandemic. Furlough, the universal credit uplift, the national living wage increase, the local housing allowance uplift and the hardship fund are all measures that have not just kept families afloat but kept them going in these uncertain times. Extending the UC uplift was the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Chancellor and his team for listening to Back Benchers such as myself when we made the case for it, but we are about to go into a period of uncertainty. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on what a further extension of that programme might look like and how it might support vulnerable people.
We are right to focus on jobs now—getting people into work, earning more and getting the skills they need to get back on the ladder. We should also look at the support schemes that are working and how we can support them. Christians Against Poverty is a great example, as is StepChange. Yet the fact remains that not everyone will be able to make the jump into a job, or to make it as quickly as others. A robust safety net has to be in place to support them, otherwise we are derelict and failing in our duty. The Kickstart and Restart schemes targeted at young people and those at risk of long-term unemployment will be key to that. I pay tribute to the Department for Work and Pensions team in Furness, which is working so hard and with great enthusiasm to deliver those schemes. Only a few days ago, my local DWP team announced that Lisa, our local youth work coach, will be working in a different office—in a place called Drop Zone in the centre of town—alongside local council officers, job providers and others. That visibility and change in circumstances is really innovative and great to see. I want more of that as we try to help those who really need it right now.
We cannot allow household debt to rack up. The Breathing Space scheme is welcome. Many of my constituents have sung its praises to me. It provides important short-term relief, and we must take this time to look at the principles behind it and how we can sympathetically help families who may be building up problem debt. I declare an interest as the former chair of the Barrow and District Credit Union, but I think there is a role that such organisations can and should play to help individuals and families as we emerge from this crisis. I hope that the Government will consider supporting them in order to support our communities more. They are well connected to debt advice charities, they work very closely with the local third sector and, perhaps most important in this regard, they help to steer people away from short-term lenders and loan sharks. In many ways, they are some of the very best parts of our civil society and some of the least known.
You will be relieved that I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Bone. We have to be alive to the fact that gaps exist, and the road ahead for many of our constituents will be difficult, especially as we try to keep them out of debt. We have to rise to that challenge. Some of the issues related to this topic are crucial; they worry away at the fabric of our society. By focusing on debt, financial exclusion, dependency, loneliness and skills, we are providing people with a ladder. We have an opportunity to make a real and lasting change for those in our communities most in need. We have to grab that opportunity and take it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Let me try to zip through this so that we can accommodate everyone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) not just for securing this debate, but for the serious work they have put in throughout on this issue. They work effectively on a cross-party basis:
I apologise for straying slightly from that cross-party approach, but I listened to the Chancellor on the “Today” programme this morning and, to be frank, he exuded complacency about the scale of problems and hardships my constituents and many others face. The Chancellor quoted selectively from today’s IFS report and the recent Resolution Foundation report. What he did not say is that the IFS reports that 700,000 more children have fallen into poverty over the last eight years. In my constituency, 42% of children are now living in poverty. What he did not quote from the Resolution Foundation report is the potential for 4% inflation by the end of the year, which will have an impact on those families.
We have to put this in the political context. A series of regressive Government policies will drive this debt and poverty crisis deeper. The scrapping of universal credit has already been mentioned, but we will have the freezing of the income tax thresholds from next April and the 5% council tax rise this year. For people on the minimum wage or working in the public sector, their pay rise this year will be below inflation, leaving them worse off in real terms. It is no wonder that the lives of many of my constituents are plagued by insecurity and stress. This leads many of them to have mental health crises, so I fear that, alongside the covid pandemic, we will experience the equivalent of a mental health pandemic, but it will be quiet and it will often be secret, because the stigma attached to debt is so heavy in our society. That is why I believe that lifting the worry of debt off people’s shoulders has to be a priority, exactly as hon. Members have said.
I welcome the combined briefing we have received from StepChange, Generation Rent and other bodies, which sets out a financial package to support and help tenants to clear covid-related rent arrears. It is a sensible and practical approach, and I hope the Minister gives it serious consideration and also takes urgent action.
The time has come to look beyond the covid-related debt crisis and to address the systemic debt burden that always weighs down so many families in our society. Tackling personal debt, as others have said, has social, economic and health benefits. One solution is to cap interest rates, and other proposals include capping the total amount that can be paid in overdraft fees on interest payments.
I also want to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said. The UK lending market and secondary debt market requires much stronger regulation from the Financial Conduct Authority if we are to protect consumers and businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, one wider solution to debt—as proposed by Johnna Montgomerie—could be the creation of a company like UK Asset Resolution, which purchased problem debt from the banks during the banking crisis, to do the same for consumers to clean up their financial situation once and for all.
This has been an important debate and I hope that the Government’s response will be positive. We will need to return to the wider question of systemic debt fairly promptly.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Unsustainable debt destroys lives, marriages and couple relationships, and causes misery to families up and down the country. As in so many areas of life, prevention is always better than cure. That is why we need to start by looking at the reasons why people end up with unsustainable debts.
Dealing with the causes of debt is at the heart of preventing the misery that unsustainable debt is responsible for. The United Kingdom stands as a real outlier internationally in that so many people who start their lives in entry-level jobs end their lives in entry-level jobs. Why is that such an issue for the United Kingdom? Why is it less so for other countries? What can we do about it?
When I served on the Work and Pensions Committee, I was taught about the ABC approach to eradicating poverty. In the Church circles that I move in, that acronym stands for our current wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury but in this context it stands for a job, a better job and a career. That is the mindset that we need to encourage and enable so that people have the opportunity perhaps to go to night school or study at weekends while they work in order to improve their skills and earn, say, £22.50 an hour rather than £9 an hour. That is exactly what the Government’s newly introduced lifetime skills guarantee sets out to facilitate, and what programmes such as the nursing associate scheme enable. Helping as many people as possible to get into work in the first place and recreating that British jobs miracle that the Government have done before is absolutely key.
Secondly, we have to do something about the ridiculous cost of housing for far too many people. That is more of a problem in some parts of the country than others, but I have long been convinced that the unavailability and unaffordability of housing is the root cause of debt and poverty in this country. Of course we need to build the houses we need in the right places and with the infrastructure going in at the same time—we have not always had the best record in achieving that—but quite simply, far too much of people’s income goes towards housing costs, which leaves far too little for food, utilities, clothing, transport and other items.
That brings me on to zero energy bill homes—precisely what we need to do now to expedite our journey to net zero but, equally important, to eradicate poverty now. Yes, we can have a home today where we do not have gas and electricity bills because the house sends more energy back to the grid in the summer than it draws down in the winter. British architect Bill Dunster OBE is already building houses that do exactly that, and no, they are not more expensive than conventional houses.
Financial literacy also matters, and we need to make sure that people have the skills to make sure they do not get ripped off with overpriced deals on all manner of items. We are doing more in this area in our schools, but we need to keep going to make sure that those skills are ingrained among the whole population.
When money is owed to local authorities, it is especially important that a reasonable and compassionate approach is taken. Some people can afford to pay and I have no problem with the full panoply of the law being used against those who can pay their bills but choose not to. Other people simply cannot pay, and local authorities have a particular duty to behave well in those circumstances. I welcome the proposal for an enforcement conduct authority to make sure that bailiffs behave reasonably as well. It is overdue and I look forward to its establishment.
I am also a strong supporter and indeed a member of a credit union, the Chalkhill Blue, in my constituency. More people should use them. For those who are in debt, amazing help is available if only people know it is there and choose to take it up. Over the last year or so, I have watched at close quarters in awe and admiration the work of a debt coach for Christians Against Poverty. I have seen—anonymised, of course—examples of people with debts of £30,000 or so who have become debt-free and able to save a little every month and live within their budget.
The tragedy is that too many people do not know that help is available or do not use it. The citizens advice bureau and the Salvation Army have a similar brilliant service in my constituency, and I am aware of other amazing charities such as Crosslight working in this area as well. If someone is suffering with problem debt that they cannot manage, they should immediately seek help from organisations such as those. Help can be at hand and people can be free of their debts, as many people are able to testify.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Like so many, I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for securing this important debate. We can all agree that with many households having suffered a prolonged fall in income as a result of the pandemic and with unemployment rising, the problem of household debt is increasingly worrying, with 14 million people having undergone an income shock over the course of the pandemic.
We have heard much today about the charity StepChange, which I am sure we all want to pay tribute to. That charity has found that 4.3 million people are now behind on basic bills such as rent, fuel or council tax, with 2.8 million people now borrowing simply to make ends meet, accessing high-cost credit that means they are more likely to be locked into a cycle of debt in the longer term. Indeed, 2.4 million people are facing long-term debt problems, which inevitably means that increasing numbers of people will face the threat of eviction and homelessness down the line.
One of the great injustices that people face in every constituency across the UK is having to pay more for their essentials, and we have heard much today about the poverty premium. The cost of accessing credit can be considerable for some people in our communities, trapping them in high-interest debts that so many of them will find difficult to manage and almost impossible to escape. As we work to emerge from this health pandemic, it is very important that inclusion is baked into all essential services, so that the pricing of all products and services is fair to all users. When necessary and appropriate, the Government should regulate the market to make sure that that happens. The poverty premium is simply an unacceptable burden on those who are already struggling. The capping of interest rates is a very interesting idea, and I hope that the Minister will look carefully at it.
As we all look forward to a return to some kind of normality, those who have fallen into covid-related rent arrears face the very real prospect of losing their homes, and some are already facing eviction notices. With household debt linked to covid soaring to crisis levels, the chief executive of the debt charity StepChange has urged the Government to bring forward a long-term vision for those financially affected by the pandemic, to avoid the danger of lasting economic and social damage that will deepen inequality and act as a drag on any economic recovery. If there is to be the kind of covid recovery that we all want to see, it must be a recovery for all of us. We have a real opportunity to use the experience of this health pandemic to look again at how we do things; how we deal with the glaring inequalities that we all know exist; and how we can be more inclusive.
However, we cannot do that when so many people in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and across the United Kingdom have lost their jobs or suffered an income shock that has driven them into debt—sometimes unmanageable debt—to help pay for essentials, which now threats to overwhelm them. Let us be clear: when people get into debt to pay for essential items, that debt is not born of profligacy, but of poverty. With many navigating the income shock that they have suffered and doing the best that they can—not least the 3 million who have been excluded from all financial support by the Government—this is not the time to pull back on the £20 per week universal credit uplift, nor is it the time to withdraw furlough payments before businesses have had the time to properly scale up their operations post-lockdown, which threatens potentially thousands more jobs.
Creativity and compassion are needed to ultimately address the debt and poverty crisis. In Scotland, the re-elected Scottish Government are using all the powers they have to alleviate poverty, which so often drives people into debt. For example, they have reached an agreement with local authorities to introduce universal free school meals for all primary 4 children, starting in August, as part of a £520 support commitment made to low-income families. A further £100 payment was made to coincide with the start of the summer holidays—which, in Scotland, is at the end of June—in addition to the £100 paid at Easter. A new school clothing grant has been announced to help low-income families with the cost of school uniforms: available each year, it has been increased from £100 to £120 for eligible parents with children in primary school, and to £150 for secondary school pupils.
A new £10 million grant fund has been established to support tenants who have fallen into arrears as a direct result of the pandemic. That is a unique scheme established to address this problem and a doubling of the game-changing Scottish child payment and the extension of free school meals in this Parliament, using every power at our disposal to tackle child poverty, which will disgracefully be undermined by the universal credit cut of £20. It is the kind of creative response that we need in order to help hard-pressed families. As the Scottish Government use all the limited powers that they have to address these issues, how much more could the UK Government do, with their control over a full gamut of powers, to create a more equal and socially just society? If that does not happen, the substantial inequalities that we currently see all around us will become even more marked, making our society less cohesive.
We are sitting, as a society, on a debt time bomb. In every constituency across the UK, people are living with constant worry about debt that they simply cannot see their way clear to paying off, not because they have been profligate or are living an enviable lifestyle, but because they have suffered an income shock through no fault of their own. They still need to feed their children, to consume energy and to pay for essentials. It is important that support is put in place for such people. Alongside this, the current plans to start withdrawing support, such as the universal credit uplift and furlough, are very worrying, as that can only exacerbate the current pressures and hardships that so many people are facing. I therefore urge the Minister to look carefully at all the concerns raised today and to bring forward the measures necessary to mitigate the misery that debt causes to families and, ultimately, wider society. Otherwise, the mantra of “building back better” will be empty and hollow words when so many are left behind.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for tabling this debate. I also welcome the contributions from all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said at the start, any consideration of the pandemic’s impact on household finances and debt has to take into account not just the overall effects that we are hearing about, but the impact on particular income groups. In this case more than many others, averages and overall outcomes can conceal very different outcomes for different groups of people. For those on secure incomes who have continued to be paid their full salary—or most of it through furlough—long periods of lockdown and the inability to spend on travel, tourism and so on during the pandemic have resulted in rising levels of savings. We hear some big numbers from the Bank of England—up to £200 billion in the course of the pandemic. That of course has led to a big increase in bank deposits, not only in this country but in most developed countries.
However, behind the overall figures lies a tale of two cities—or perhaps this week, we should say “a game of two halves”. The biggest increases in savings have come for those who were better off in the first place and for retirees. Those on low incomes and the unemployed have seen savings decrease, and that is if they had any savings at all in the first place. For many people on low incomes who had nothing to spend on holidays or restaurants in the first place, the cost of essentials has gone up over the past year. Families have been spending more time at home. That has seen heating bills rise. There have been increased food bills from children spending long periods off school. And there have been other extra costs.
This morning’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the proportion of low-income households in arrears with their bills rose from 15% to 22% in the early months of the pandemic. Among the self-employed, the rise was even more stark. The proportion of the self-employed falling behind on household bills rose from just 2%, at the start of the pandemic, to 13%. There was also a rise in this figure among some ethnic minority-led households, where often there is just one income earner.
The charity StepChange, which we have heard a lot about today, reports that 11 million people have built up debts of £25 billion during the pandemic and that 4.3 million are now behind on things such as council tax, rent and fuel. It reports a 40% increase in the number of people facing severe debt problems, and that half a million private renters are now in arrears—that is twice as many as before the first national lockdown—at a time when the ban on evictions has just come to an end. Combined, those effects have led to the campaigning organisation Generation Rent to fear that thousands of tenants could face eviction just as the country tries to emerge from the pandemic. The number of renters on universal credit has already doubled during the pandemic.
There has quite rightly been a focus on universal credit today. I acknowledge that the Government’s support has helped household incomes during the pandemic. The furlough scheme, grants for small businesses and the £20 a week uplift have all made a big difference until now, but as even the Prime Minister confirmed earlier this week, although restrictions will be lifted in the coming weeks, we cannot say the pandemic is over.
That is why six former Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions have taken the step of writing to their own Chancellor to say that the £20 a week universal credit uplift should not be withdrawn in September. Their letter says:
“A failure to act would mean not grasping this opportunity to invest in a future with more work and less poverty and would damage living standards, health and opportunities for some of the families that need our support most as we emerge from the pandemic.”
That is what the Chancellor’s own former colleagues are saying. Going ahead with this cut would mean a loss of £1,000 a year in income for 6 million of the lowest income households in the country.
On the radio this morning the Chancellor tried to justify the cut by referring to incentives to work. Leaving aside the callous implication that poverty has to be increased to persuade people to work, we have to remember that two in five universal credit claimants are already in work, and the proportion of in-work households dependent on universal credit is expected to rise over the course of this Parliament. It is a myth to portray universal credit as just an out-of-work benefit. It supports many people who are in work, too.
The regional impact of the proposed £20 a week cut is deeply uneven. In the region I represent in the west midlands, the cut is expected to hit one third of households. Similar proportions of households will be affected in Yorkshire and the north-east. How can the Government talk about levelling up when they are about to proceed with a cut in income that will hit the poorest hardest and will hit the north and the midlands hardest? Equality is not just about a few new buildings or a few pots for capital spending; it is about incomes and opportunities, too. It is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about families who are struggling to pay the bills.
Although some of the Government’s interventions have made a big difference overall, for some people the past year has meant debt increases and a big strain on household budgets. It would be grossly complacent of the Government or anyone else to look just at the overall figures and averages. The Government must get underneath these figures and consider the impact on those who have the lowest incomes. In particular, the Government should reconsider the cut of £20 a week that they plan to make for the 6 million poorest households in the country in just a few months’ time.
This issue, perhaps more than any other, points to the need to come out of this pandemic in a better position than when we went into it. We need to tackle inequalities, which, although not created by the experience of the last 18 months, have certainly been exposed by it. We have to be more ambitious than just trying to recreate what went before. If build back better means anything, it means tackling some of those problems and building something that really is better for the future. That is what we have to do, starting with household debt.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this debate. I know that both Members care a great deal about the question of how best to protect the personal finances of the most vulnerable. They have made many valuable contributions in Parliament on this matter, including through the hon. Lady’s role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on debt and personal finance and my hon. Friend’s Local Welfare Assistance Provision (Review) Bill, which has been mentioned today.
I thank all Members who have contributed this afternoon for their deeply thoughtful and considered speeches, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Our thinking may diverge in some areas, but I believe that there is a great degree of commonality between us. We have a shared desire to tackle problem debt and a shared understanding that this complex issue cannot be wished away with quick fixes, much as we might like it to be. We also have a shared recognition that we must tackle this issue strategically. As a number of Members highlighted this afternoon, the covid-19 pandemic has meant that action in this area is required now more than ever before.
The Government have responded to the crisis with one of the most comprehensive economic plans in the world. I reject the assertion that that somehow means that there is a degree of complacency: that is not the case. With the furlough scheme, the self-employed income support schemes and substantial welfare support, including the £20 universal credit uplift, a suspension of the universal credit minimum floor and an increase to local housing allowance rates, the Government have sought to make a range of interventions across society. I believe that that plan is working.
We also recognise that even when the economy bounces back, and there are very encouraging signs in that direction, there will still be people living in fear of a knock from a debt collector or another payment demand. That is why we have introduced the numerous policies that have been mentioned this afternoon. I would like to respond to Members’ points about the policies that we have introduced to help people escape debt. As has been highlighted today, we are maintaining record levels of funding for free debt advice in England through the Money and Pensions Service this year, with a budget of £96.4 million. I recognise that there is still some uncertainty about the nature of that demand as people’s situations become clearer, but that includes funding for the Money Adviser Network pilots, which simplify access to debt advice. I am pleased to say that more than 40 different creditor organisations are now signed up, including HM Revenue and Customs.
I recognise hon. Members’ concerns about the complexity of tax debts, but consumers referred via the network will first have a conversation with an HMRC adviser, which should minimise the risk of misunderstanding over what is owed. The Money and Pensions Service budget also includes funding for the administration of debt relief orders. A number of colleagues have raised that this afternoon. We know that DROs can be an important solution for some, which is why we worked closely with the Insolvency Service to raise the monetary eligibility limits for DROs from the end of last month, a step that will help more people take advantage of this valuable option.
I recognise that some Members would like the Government to review the £90 DRO fee, as the Woolard review recommended earlier this year. I acknowledge those concerns but the Government believe that further changes to DROs should not be considered in isolation. A number of Members have made the point that we need joined-up solutions, so we will undertake a wider consultation on the personal insolvency framework. We will in due course launch a call for evidence to help us gain a deeper understanding of the situation.
I want to talk about Breathing Space. The steps we have taken are significant, because we recognise that the barrage of letters, calls and bills can be overwhelming, leaving borrowers unable to tackle what they owe. We launched the Breathing Space scheme on 4 May, just two months ago, whereby lenders agree to hold off fees and payment requests for 60 days. That relieves the pressures on borrowers and gives them time to tackle their finances with the support of a qualified debt adviser.
I will address the point, made by several Members, about whether 60 days is long enough. We believe that that period finds the right balance between debt advice, clients’ interests and their creditors’ rights. It has only been there for two months. However, we should also recognise that greater flexibility is built into the system for those experiencing mental health crises, reflecting the nature of the treatment and the challenges that might arise in supporting those clients. We will use a similar model of respite from bills and demands for our statutory debt repayment plan, which is currently being developed to work alongside the Breathing Space scheme. Under the plan, people struggling with problem debt will enter into formal agreements with creditors to repay their debts over a more manageable timeframe. Our aim is to lay legislation at the end of next year and introduce the scheme thereafter in 2024.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys so aptly put it, debt should not mean destitution. Income that could be spent on essential items, such as cookers or washing machines, or that could build savings, should not be swallowed up by sky-high interest rates. Fair and affordable credit should be available to all those who need it. I will turn to our work in this area. As has been highlighted, at the Budget we announced plans to provide up to £3.8 million to work on a pilot for no-interest loan schemes. I care passionately about this area, and I think it could make a real difference to many vulnerable people’s lives.
I note my hon. Friend’s comments about a cut and paste from Australia. He is right that we can learn a lot from the equivalent Australian scheme, especially in terms of partnership. Their scheme has been so successful because hundreds of socially minded organisations have played their part alongside the Government. We hope to follow that model and develop a scheme that is sustainable and properly supports vulnerable customers. I hear the urgency around that, and indeed I spoke to my officials just yesterday about securing an update on it in the coming days. Our next step is to appoint a delivery organisation with suitable expertise. Further details will be announced soon.
My hon. Friend is also correct to point out that greater market diversity is critical if we are to achieve our goals in this area. That is why we have used a significant part of the £96 million dormant assets scheme—money that would otherwise have remained idle—to boost financial inclusion. We have also committed to legislate to enable credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services; my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) mentioned his involvement in a credit union. There are, I think, 411 credit unions across the country, of wide and varying expertise. We have worked closely with the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd, one of the significant trade bodies for credit unions, to develop that approach. While legislation will play an important part in widening access to affordable credit, innovation is also key, as some Members picked up on. That is why, in this year’s Budget, we announced a number of actions in response to the independent Ron Kalifa review into FinTech, including measures to make it easier for firms to attract staff and develop new concepts.
I will make a final point on two other issues that I know are of real interest to contributors this afternoon. First, it is true that buy-now, pay-later agreements can be a helpful way of managing finance, but we need to make sure that consumers are protected. As we indicated during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021 earlier this year, we will bring buy-now, pay-later under regulation, as the Woolard review recommended. However, any future regulation must be proportionate so as not to fundamentally damage those products that are innovative and low cost. There is a distinction between smoothing lumpy expenditures and multiple, unsustainable deferred payments. We must get that right, but I recognise the urgency around it.
I appreciate the positive words about our recent “access to cash” consultation. I assure Members that the Treasury is working closely with the private sector—indeed, I had meetings just this morning—to ensure that we get that right, and that cash services are provided for people in an environment where the use of cash is diminishing significantly.
I reiterate the acknowledgment that there is a real desire to provide urgent help to those who are dealing with significant debts. I share that strength of feeling, as I hope my track record in this role demonstrates. It is vital that these policies improve the lives of as many people as possible, so I welcome the range of speeches this afternoon and the constructive spirit that was relayed in many of them. I look forward to further collaboration to deepen and improve our interventions in this area.
Yvonne Fovargue [V]
Thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Bone. I thank all the Members who contributed for their passionate, well-informed speeches on this issue, and I thank the Minister. Many good initiatives have been put forward, but there is a lot more that we can do. We do not want the debt crisis to turn into another symptom like long covid—a long debt crisis. We need to turn this into an opportunity. There are opportunities—to remove the shame from debt; to look at the causes of debt; and to look at creative solutions, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon. Not all of them should be loans. There will be a need for grants for people who are so mired in debt that they cannot see their way out. There is an opportunity to look both at how we can prevent debt and how we can help those who fall into debt.
I fear that if we do not seize those opportunities we shall be back here repeatedly, having this debate for many years ahead. While we debate this subject in Parliament, my constituents and people across the country will be suffering. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, they will be finding that debt has turned into destitution, and that is something that we all need to be aware of.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on household debt.
Election Campaign Finances: Regulation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to procedures in Westminster Hall because of the hybrid arrangements. Debate times have been amended, as you will already know. I remind hon. Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of the debate and remain until its completion, and keep their cameras on at all times—so we can keep an eye on you and make sure you are having as much fun as we are.
I also remind hon. Members to sanitise the desk they have been using before leaving the room. If those of you joining us virtually have any technical difficulties, email westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk and they should be able to sort out any immediate problems.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of election campaign finances.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Before I start, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place in Westminster Hall this afternoon. The debate has come at a timely moment. The Government published the Elections Bill this week and yesterday the Committee on Standards in Public Life published its report on the regulation of election finance—a lengthy review. I myself was interviewed by the Committee on my work chairing the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s inquiry on disinformation and fake news. I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to discuss the Elections Bill with her and her officials some months ago, before it was published.
It is very important to have these periodic reviews of election law, because technology changes the way we live our lives and the way in which elections are fought, and regulations have to keep pace with changes to society. At the heart of good election regulation are two simple and fundamental things that have stood us in good stead through the ages, and it is important that they are translated into the modern world: transparency of funding and transparency in campaigning. We all know that when we deliver leaflets in our constituencies during elections, there is an imprint on those leaflets saying who paid for them and who they promote. There is no provision for online campaigning, and given that online campaigning—particularly on Facebook—now plays a much bigger part in everyone’s campaigns, it is increasingly important that there should be. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government are recommending the introduction of electronic imprints as a legal requirement in the Bill. It is a very necessary reform.
One of the big challenges that we face is not campaigning under our party banners. To an extent, we all have a bit of personal jeopardy if we put out leaflets with a party logo or our names on them: there is an assumption that they belong to us. Although, of course, as recent by-elections have shown, it is possible for people to put out leaflets without necessarily saying who they are, so this is not a purely online phenomenon, but it is one that is increasingly important in the online world. When non-party campaign organisations—not official registered party groups—campaign with increasing resources and increasing funding, not just in election periods but throughout the year, it is important that there is some understanding of where their funding comes from when they seek to campaign on a political issue.
The problem does not just affect the UK; it is a problem around the world. In 2019, I attended the International Grand Committee on Disinformation in Ottawa, Canada. That was a meeting of parliamentarians who were mainly interested in digital campaigning, disinformation and the role of elections in the online world. It was the second such meeting. The first was the meeting I chaired here in the Boothroyd Room as part of the DCMS Committee’s inquiry on disinformation and fake news. At that meeting in Ottawa, one of the witnesses we questioned was Ellen Weintraub, the commissioner for the Federal Election Commission in the United States. She set out the problem with online donations as she saw it in America, and I think people would agree that there are a lot of parallels elsewhere in the world, including here. In response to a question that I asked her about the difficulty of tracking money online, she said that
“our entire system of regulation is based on the assumption that large sums of money are what we need to worry about and that this is where we should focus our regulatory activity. On the Internet, however, sometimes very small amounts of money can be used to have vast impact, and that doesn’t even get into the possibility of Bitcoin and other technologies being used to entirely mask where the money is coming from…The problem with dark money is that you never really know who is behind it. There has been about a billion dollars in dark money spent on our elections in the last 10 years, and I cannot tell you who is behind it. That’s the nature of the darkness…We have a constant stream of complaints about dark money. The case I just described to you is one of the foremost examples we’ve seen recently. It can be money that comes in through LLCs…In this case, it came in through the domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation.”
She sets out the nature of the problem. It is easy to transfer money in small amounts anywhere in the world, but it is very difficult to trace. If that money is being donated to political campaigns, of whatever nature, it is difficult to know the original source of the funding. We need to be very mindful of that in the digital age.
Just before the last general election, I chaired a DCMS Committee session with PayPal. Interestingly, PayPal gave an answer similar to that which we often get from technology companies about the things that happen on their systems. Its view was that it was not its responsibility to know the source of funding, or indeed whether funding was permissible, when someone made a political donation through its systems. If someone overseas makes a political donation to a political party in the UK, the platform facilitating the transaction says it has no obligation to know or check, even though it is being used to facilitate what would be an offence. The liability rests entirely with the party receiving the funding, but I do not think that payment platforms should have no role in supervising what goes on. They could at least change their settings so that the country of origin of a donation is clearer. Again, I know that this is something that the Government have looked at in their Elections Bill to try to ensure that there is greater transparency on foreign donations, which is very important.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has made some specific recommendations that merit consideration. One is that company donations should not exceed net profits after tax generated in the UK within the two preceding years, which is very helpful. Businesses make donations to political campaigns—I have had businesspeople in my constituency in Kent make donations to my political campaigns. It is a perfectly proper form of donation, but it is clear which companies are involved, as they have to declare it, just as an individual would have to declare it. We should guard against shell companies being used to make large donations when they are not turning any profit, because the question will rightly be asked whether the money was transferred to that company so that it could make a donation but not generated by it. In that case, where did it really come from? The Committee on Standards in Public Life was right to make that recommendation and it is worthy of consideration and debate.
Recommendation 10 in the Committee’s report was that all donations over £500 be donated through the banking system, which would allow greater transparency on the source of funds. People would have the option of making smaller donations through electronic payments and systems such as PayPal. Paying money through the banking system is not a guarantee of transparency, but it is a more transparent method. Again, it is worth considering what the threshold should be in that circumstance.
As I have already said, I welcome the fact that the Minister proposes in the Bill to have electronic imprints on electronic campaign materials, but there should also be common standards on the role that technology companies perform in this regard. Some companies have ad libraries where they keep a store of all the ads that a campaign has placed. Facebook does that. It also requires that anyone placing an advert has a Facebook page, and they have to demonstrate to the company that they are a real person. However, I know the Information Commissioner has spoken about the difficulty sometimes in tracking down the real source of campaign ads, particularly when that source is not a political party but a new organisation that has just been set up. We need to make sure we have high standards there, so that people placing political ads are known and are known to be permissible advertisers.
Ad libraries for political campaigns should not be based on the platform policies of the companies. It would be good practice to ask anyone advertising through online platforms, and for those platforms to require a record of ads to be kept. Ads on social media can be placed as dark ads, where they target individuals and not everyone else can see them. It is useful to the democratic process for everyone to be able see and check what a campaign organisation is saying to its voters, even if it is not targeting those adverts at anyone.
In the same way, it is important for people to know why they are being targeted. There are systems, particularly on social media, whereby people can look at why they are receiving an advert—why it has been targeted at them—but they are not necessarily standardised. It would be a good thing for people to be able to see why they were receiving a political message. Is it because they have declared an affiliation for that party and therefore they are being targeted, or is it for other reasons? People should have the right to check and there should be standardised tools in that space.
There is also the question of ads that are fraudulent, wrong or misleading during elections. This is not just about policy debate; I think it is very difficult to regulate political opinions. As we all know, politicians can give two totally different arguments on the same subject, based on different interpretations of the same facts. We cannot seem to regulate that, nor do we try in this country. The fact that we have imprints on ads creates personal jeopardy for what we say—we have to put our name to it and it can be traced back to us. However, in the near future, technology will take us to a place where deepfake films could be made of a politician saying something inflammatory on the eve of an election. In fact, it would be a synthetic creation of them on film, saying something that they had never said. If that ad was being placed online on social media, and it could be demonstrated and proven that it was fake—that it was not based on real footage—what action would be required? Would it be a required action of take-down by the social media companies? Would the content be considered illegal for electoral purposes? Would it be stopped? In the very near future, new technology will make that sort of campaigning very cheap and easy, and we have to consider our response to that.
There is also the question of foreign placement of advertising, such as the much talked about case in America during the 2016 presidential election of the Russians buying ads on Facebook to target voters. It was an offence there, and indeed, foreign buying of ads to target voters in the UK would be an offence too. There are different countries around the world—not just the Russians, but the Iranian Government and other Governments—that engage in the process of electoral interference in other countries. We should regard that as an offence having been committed. If it is an offence that has been committed, and those ads have been identified as being run to target British voters, then it is legitimate to ask whether that activity is illegal. If it is illegal, there are two things we should consider: it is not just an offence committed by the person who has placed the ads, but an offence committed by the platform for running those ads in breach of the law.
The Government’s draft Online Safety Bill will require social media and other technology companies to have policies in place to remove illegal content. We need to consider whether an illegal ad, placed on social media by a foreign agent, targeting UK voters, would require the social media company to remove it as a form of illegal content, as it will be required to do under the Bill. In that situation, should that be a requirement of the regulator? The Bill recommends that Ofcom be the regulator—we can question whether for political ads it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, whichever is most appropriate. If we regard such ads as being illegal, should the regulator’s task under the Bill be to say to the social media company that they must demonstrate to us that they would not only remove those ads when identified, but have systems in place to try and stop this happening—to check when someone places an ad whether it is illegal, to identify it and to stop it? Good practice should be that social media companies take an interest in where in the world people are buying ads from, and, when they do it, whether they are doing so in breach of electoral law.
I labour that point because I think it is important. I remember questioning Facebook about the case in 2016; about whether they had identified Russian ads that had run in America, and whether they had ever identified anything like that in previous elections in the UK. They said that if we had intelligence that that had happened, we could give it to them and they would check. However, there was no obligation for them to have those systems in place to pre-emptively stop it. If this was another form of fraud, such as banking fraud, banks are required to proactively look for, and identify, likely sources of fraud, and to notify the authorities of something suspicious. That does not exist in law around the placements of ads during elections. The combination of the Elections Bill and the draft Online Safety Bill that the Government are bringing in poses this natural question as to whether some forms of campaigning are illegal and, in that case, whether the regulator should take a view on not just acting against them, but ensuring that the companies have policies in place to make sure that this sort of campaigning does not happen in the first place.
These are all incredibly serious and important issues. I have spoken to the Electoral Commission about this, and it finds it quite frustrating, when dealing with technology companies to pursue lines of inquiry about suspicious activity, that unless it has launched a formal investigation, the company will not co-operate, because it is under no obligation to do so. Again, we need to consider the powers of the Electoral Commission in this regard both to make preliminary inquiries of a technology company about likely offences relating to digital adverts and to share information that it has discovered that could be relevant to the work of the police or the Information Commissioner. It is important that we consider those points.
These are important issues, and this debate is timely given the welcome introduction of the Government’s Elections Bill, the soon-to-start parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Online Safety Bill, and the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That report is the first of its kind for 20 years, which shows that these things come along only periodically, so it is important that we get this right.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Paisley. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this incredibly important debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—I think I have pronounced his constituency correctly; apologies if I have not.
Free and fair elections are one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Elections place power in the hands of the people to choose the politicians they wish to stand in this House to represent their needs and interests. However, a true democracy is not defined by the holding of elections alone. It is essential that our elections our competitive, inclusive and free from corruption and undue influence.
In this digital age, our democracy faces new challenges as our elections are increasingly fought on the battlegrounds of social media. As we continue to adapt to this new media age, so must our electoral regulations. It is vital that these regulations are updated to ensure political parties do not use the digital landscape to abuse voter data and undercut electoral finance laws.
Social media is playing an increasingly important role in modern politics. It has become the stage on which free debate and the sharing of ideas flow, and while we have all experienced the negative side of social media, it has undoubtedly made politics more accessible. I have personal and recent experience of this. In the recent Airdrie and Shotts by-election, whereby I was elected to this House, I made use of social media. I regularly created TikTok videos explaining a day in the life of a candidate-if you have not attempted a TikTok dance, Mr Paisley, I highly suggest it. The comments from viewers were positive, and many noted that these videos actually helped them engage with politics and made politics more accessible to them as voters.
However, as with all advances in technology, with each positive development comes a challenge that we must adapt to and overcome. In recent elections, we have seen political parties and sides exploiting technology to abuse voter data and undercut electoral finance laws. Electoral regulations are essential to ensuring that elections remain free and fair. However, social media has created a loophole that certain political sides have been all too happy to take advantage of.
For example, during the Brexit campaign, Vote Leave utilised data acquired from football sweepstakes to build its voter harvesting base and target voters unsuspectedly with political campaigns. It utilised these illicit tactics to boost its campaign while subverting regulations. The Tories—we can begin to see a pattern here—illegally collected the ethnicity and nationality data of 10 million voters to target them in the 2019 general election. It appears that some in the Conservative party believe that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else. However, such illegality cannot be allowed to go unchecked, and if political parties cannot be trusted to follow the rules, it is essential that we strengthen our electoral regulations to prevent them from compromising our democracy.
The Tories are also launching an attack on our democracy by scrapping the electoral checks and balances of the Electoral Commission and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which are essential to upholding the standards of our democracy. As the Tories attempt to gut the Electoral Commission, I must ask where the Labour party stands on defending our electoral democracy. By abstaining in the vote to remove the Act, it is failing to be an Opposition—to stand up to the Conservatives’ attacks on democracy and their blatant attempts to grab power while polls are in their favour.
The Tories’ attempts to weaken the checks and balances of the Electoral Commission have very real consequences for our democracy. Electoral finance laws will continue to become entirely redundant, creating a system in which the party with the biggest cheques has the greatest advantage. That will undoubtedly impact the ability of smaller parties to compete in elections and will continue to uphold Westminster’s two-party system, which is becoming increasingly less reflective of the range of political beliefs held by the electorate.
This attack on our electoral system is just the latest of the Tory Government’s sustained attempts to chip away at our democracy. In recent years we have seen this Government attack the judiciary, disregard parliamentary convention and even attempt to suspend our democracy completely through the unlawful Prorogation of Parliament. Just this week we have seen the Third Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is nothing less than an attempt by this Government to clamp down on the democratic right to protest. It is no surprise that they are going after the institutions that hold them accountable: they do not want to strengthen our Electoral Commission, because the commission’s weaknesses allows them to benefit. It is not democracy that matters to this Government: it is the ability to use their money and influence to gain power that is of most importance.
For centuries, the United Kingdom has regarded itself as a leader of democracy—an example for nations around the world to follow. I say, as someone whose ancestors were part of the British empire, that there has been this regard for the UK as a leader of democracy. However, under this Government there have been continuous attempts to chip away at that democratic system, moving power from the ballot to the wallet. It is vital that we stand up against this attack on our democracy and reject any attempts to weaken the power of the Electoral Commission. Instead, we should seek to extend its powers to ensure that the cornerstone of our democracy is protected from any attempt by the Government to utilise technology and finances to improve their outcomes in future elections.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. My thanks go to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for having secured this important debate and for all the excellent work he has done on this issue over the years in various roles.
I welcome the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the regulation of election finance, and this chance to debate it alongside the Elections Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. That Bill includes five core measures to improve and tighten up the important components of the political finance framework, namely fairness, transparency and controls against foreign spending. The five new measures it introduces are third-party campaigner registration; restriction of third-party campaigning; a ban on simultaneously registering as a political party and a third party; restrictions on co-ordinated spending between political parties and third parties; and the requirement for new political parties to declare assets and liabilities.
These are the right measures in terms of their focus, and they are broadly a step in the right direction, but they are simply not robust enough and do not go far enough. They do not reflect the seriousness of the challenges our democracy faces from dark and dirty money, which has the potential to fundamentally corrupt our democratic system. I will come back to what the recommendations should be and what changes need to be made to the Bill—although we in the all-party parliamentary group on electoral campaigning transparency broadly support the Bill, there are a number of areas where it really needs to be strengthened.
Let me give some extra context as to why we think the debate is so important. For far too long, we have taken our democracy for granted. We have been complacent, and our complacency has allowed malign forces to subvert our rules and undermine our institutions. It is not just a British phenomenon, of course. Dark money and dirty data are a real and present threat right across the west.
The work that I have been doing over the past few years in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, in partnership with FairVote, has been to focus on British democracy and on how we can ensure that we have our own house in order, with a system of election finance regulation that is resilient to hostile threats and fit for the 21st century. We launched our report “Democracy in the Digital Age” in January 2020. It was the first real attempt to step up and meet the challenges around finance and transparency, and we hope that the Elections Bill is a sign that Parliament is finally waking up and realising that our democracy is under threat and that we must do something about it.
Many of the revelations about just how flimsy our defences are were brought to public attention following the EU referendum campaign and through the prosecutions in some of our general elections in the past five years. Our APPG has always been clear that we are about looking to the future rather than back at the past. We are about protecting the soul of our democracy for generations to come, learning the lessons of the past but recognising that we have to be resilient for the future.
Let us be absolutely clear: there is a real problem with election finance. The Electoral Commission was established at a time when political campaigning centred around door-knocking and leafleting. It is an analogue regulator in a digital age. Digital campaigning and online political engagement have revolutionised politics, so it is critical that the commission is given the tools and resources it needs to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Crucially, the Electoral Commission actually recognises that. Its leadership has openly acknowledged that the commission lacks resources and bite. Paltry maximum fines of £20,000 are really just the cost of doing business for some of the very wealthy funders we are dealing with, while a lack of prosecuting power means there is little deterrence for those who are all too ready to break the law.
It gives us confidence to hear from the Committee on Standards in Public Life report that
“The majority of contributors expressed confidence in the Commission as an independent, non-partisan regulator, including those who see room for improvement in how the Commission carries out its role.”
The committee is right to say that. Although some have called for the abolition of the Electoral Commission, and draft legislation has called for taking away its independence and prosecutorial powers, the aim of the forthcoming electoral integrity Bill should be to give the Electoral Commission the resources and power it needs to tackle the threats to our democracy, as outlined in the CSPL’s report.
It is deeply concerning that, for the first time, a majority of the members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission are from the governing party. That is deeply unfortunate, as independence can be ensured only if cross-party consensus is maintained. We urge changes to be made to return confidence in the Speaker’s Committee and its governance role in this context. As the CSPL’s report makes clear,
“An electoral system needs to be demonstrably fair and to command the confidence of political parties and the public and must be overseen by a strong independent regulator.”
Our all-parliamentary group’s report makes 20 recommendations across three specific areas, based on evidence from 70 different organisations and experts. There were three clusters of areas. The first cluster was around transparency: how we make sure that citizens have access to information about online and offline aspects of election and referendum campaigns. Secondly, there was deterrence: how we offer the Electoral Commission the tools it needs to deter and, if necessary, penalise. Thirdly, there was monitoring: how we ensure there is a process to review whether campaign laws are up to date and can be reformed when needed. We believe those are the three key ingredients needed to ensure that the public feel confident that the system works.
Focusing specifically on campaign finance regulation, we said that the Elections Bill needs to be amended according to the following recommendations. All donations should be regulated
“by reducing permissibility check requirements from £500 to 1p for all non-cash donations”.
We should also
“Increase transparency and regulation of local candidate financial reports by shifting oversight to the Electoral Commission…Streamline national versus local spending limits with a per-seat cap on total spending…Modernise spending regulations by instituting per-annum spending limits…Standardise financial reporting”
and
“Require corporate donations to come from profits reported in the UK”.
We also say:
“Third Party Political Organisations and political parties should complete an ‘Exit’ audit after an election period”.
Finally, we should include valuation of the dataset costs in spending regulations. Those recommendations must be taken seriously by the Minister, and I hope she will be open to amendments accordingly.
Over the past year, we have sought to gain support in Parliament, and we are looking to lobby the Government, as well as those in Cardiff and Holyrood. We continue to make progress on those fronts. However, I want to finish by saying this: all around the world, democracy is in retreat. Authoritarian regimes outnumber democracies for the first time since 2001 and they are on the rise. Britain must be at the forefront of the fight to defend democracy and to stand up for human rights and international law. If we are to be effective and credible in working with our allies to do that, we must start by defending democracy at home—we must get our own house in order. It is our job to build processes, systems and institutions that inspire trust. It is our job to clear away the fake news, the dodgy data and the dirty money that is polluting our system. It is our job to save our precious democracy and to safeguard it for future generations. Our most dangerous enemy is complacency, and I will continue to work with colleagues across the House to make sure that Parliament is complacent no longer.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing a debate on such an important topic. He has long been a campaigner for transparent electoral campaigning and finances, particularly through his time as Chair of the DCMS Committee. It was good to hear his reflections on non-party campaigning groups, which I will return to; campaigning and spending outwith principal election periods; and the sizeable impact of social media campaigns on citizens, even with relatively little spend. I found his warnings on the need to future-proof our responses to hitherto undreamt-of technological and digital advances particularly important.
I also want to mention the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) on her personal experience of campaigning in a recent by-election. Of course, social media can be used as a force for good and to enable our electorate to hear more about their candidates and the parties they would be voting for, but she also referenced recent examples of illegality in the 2019 general election and other actions taken by the Government in what certainly appear to many of us to be blatant attempts to circumvent democracy.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) called for a strengthening of our democratic system to fight what he describes as blatant corruption. He says, and I agree with him, that we have taken democracy for granted for too long and we have been complacent while shadowy groups have undermined that precious thing. He also ably outlined a few of the recommendations that our all-party parliamentary group on electoral campaigning transparency made in our report. I am sure the Minister, who I welcome to her place, is aware of those recommendations. It will be interesting to hear her reflections. This debate is vital. We need to restore confidence in the electoral process, and I hope today’s debate goes some way towards raising issues that need to be examined properly by the Government and by all of us..
I welcome the report from the Committee on Standards. It is good to see an official body still committed to supporting higher standards in public life. Heaven knows this Government certainly do not. The view once held of a Westminster system with checks and balances sufficient to outweigh the lack of a written constitution has gone, stripped away by a group of self-interested and unreconstructed politicians. Scotland has bitter memories of Thatcher and the destruction that she and her party wrought on the communities of our country, but I think even she would blanch at this Government’s approach to governance: ineptitude and slavering greed, shot through with a staggering sense of entitlement and a callous disregard for the difficulties of ordinary folk, and now further attacks on the democracy that underpins public life throughout these islands. Who cares for lost voting rights?
I am very proud to be a member of the all-party group on electoral campaigning transparency and of the report that we produced in January 2020 after a lengthy inquiry, with its 20 recommendations for improving the electoral system. I commend the many expert witnesses to the inquiry, as well as colleagues, and particularly Fair Vote UK, for all their efforts.
We cannot have a debate on campaign finance regulation without discussing the ways in which that regulation is so regularly circumvented, particularly through the use of social media and digital platforms in political campaigning. Electoral legislation more than 20 years old does not encompass the massive shift that there has been to digital campaigning, so it certainly needs updating and strengthening—a point that journalists such as Carole Cadwalladr have been making, and something that we on the APPG have been arguing for.
The Elections Bill, hastily released to provide governmental cover before the Committee’s report was launched, contained little more than a few scraps thrown to the campaigners, which is perhaps why the Government have decided to remove the word “integrity” from the Bill’s title. Even Ministers cannot swallow it. Now that that report has been published, I look forward to the Minister indicating how the Government will incorporate the more than 40 recommendations that it makes for the Elections Bill. I would particularly like to see the Government address the long-standing dark money issues that hover around so-called non-party campaigners.
The infamous Brexit donation that came via a former Scottish Conservative chair and Tory candidate, routed through the Democratic Unionist party to take advantage of the less strict reporting regime in Northern Ireland, springs to mind. It came from a secretive body based in Scotland called the Constitutional Research Council. We still do not know who supplied the DUP with that record £435,000 donation, which it used to pay for a wraparound advert in a newspaper that does not even appear in Northern Ireland days before the EU referendum.
That is not the only example. Unincorporated associations are regularly used to funnel money into UK politics without revealing the sources of the money. The Scottish Unionist Association Trust provided 54% of the income for the Scottish Conservatives from December 2019 to December last year. Another 25% came from the Stalbury Trustees. What those organisations have in common is that no one knows where they get their funds from. We could also mention the Midlands Industrial Council, the United and Cecil Club, the political committee of the Carlton Club, the Leamington Fund, the Scottish Conservative Prize Draw Society, the spring lunch and so on.
Money with no proper sources declared is funnelled into party politics. It stinks. It reeks of corruption. The letter of the law was not broken, we are told, but the spirit of the law is bent beyond recognition. How can the recipients of the cash be sure that it satisfies the requirements of the legislation when they cannot know where it originated? We need a robust body, independent of Government, to monitor and have the powers to enforce when they find error, deliberate or otherwise.
I am delighted that the Committee on Standards gives the commission such strong support in its report. The commission’s current powers are insufficient. I agree with the Committee that the commission’s powers should be strengthened, not weakened or removed, and that non-party campaigners should disclose more information, such as, for example, the basics of a website address, and should register at each election in which they intend to campaign. Various campaign groups sprang up just before the last Scottish election, using Facebook adverts in particular to push political messages. It was impossible to establish who paid for the ads and the groups’ political links. That is currently legal, but it cannot be right that non-party campaigning groups do not have to outline to the public who funds them. It cannot be right that we do not know what links they might have to political parties or to political lobby groups, which are themselves funded secretively and might even present themselves as, say, educational charities.
I note that those calling the loudest for the weakening or even removal of the Electoral Commission’s powers have clearly benefited in the past from the largesse of undeclared donors—people who do not want the slosh of cash in public life to be monitored. It is worth noting, as was made clear in the evidence of witnesses before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee recently, that the quality and clarity of Electoral Commission advice depends largely on the quality of the legislation. These are not Electoral Commission rules; these are rules set by Parliament. If problems come about during elections and appear in Electoral Commission ambiguities reports, it is up to Parliament to address that. One could therefore argue that the Government and their supporters are taking issue with Electoral Commission methods while ignoring the part successive Governments have played in creating those methods before now.
Another important point is about oversight of the commission, which is in part conducted through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I believe now is the first time ever that one party has a majority on that Committee, and it is the party of Government. That cannot be healthy. I urge the Government and the Speaker to look at how that undemocratic and unfortunate situation might be reversed. Will the Government also look at incorporating anti-money laundering regulations, including such features as risk assessments, enhanced due diligence and setting out specific procedures for record keeping, monitoring and the management of compliance with the policies? “Know your donor” needs to be integral to our campaigning culture.
What people are looking for in the regulation of election or referendum campaign finances is transparency; a level playing field; confidence and trust in the electoral processes, and for those to be simple and clear; strong accountability and enforcement action; and for the regulator to be independent of political or other influences. Our legislation needs to reflect that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Labour party, and to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful remarks, which in places were worrying. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his important comments on the prevalence of dark money and dirty data, the complacency with which this issue has been treated up to now, the shortcomings of the Electoral Commission, and his recommendations on transparency, deterrence and monitoring.
Members can certainly agree that the laws that govern our elections are complex, fragmented and confusing. We need the highest possible standards for electoral finances—free, fair and corruption-free—with strong regulation to guard the integrity of our democracy and to guard against the influence of foreign state and non-state actors and all threats to our democracy, both at home and abroad. It is widely accepted that our electoral laws are not fit for the modern age, with many written before the creation of the internet. Such an archaic system has left huge loopholes in the way our elections are regulated. The Law Commission’s report back in 2016 made a series of constructive recommendations about electoral law, but the Conservative Government have failed to take any action before now.
The fact is that, over the past decade, the Conservatives have failed to take any action to modernise our electoral laws or close the loopholes that allow foreign money to flood into our democracy. The reason is clear. The archaic laws benefit the Conservative party, allowing wealthy foreign donors who have never paid tax in the UK to bankroll their campaigns. Instead of closing these loopholes, the Government’s Elections Bill announced this week will further weaken our donation laws, allowing rich Conservative expats unlimited access to our democracy and opening the floodgates to foreign money coming into our politics, at our peril.
It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to pre-empt the Committee on Standards in Public Life report with the Bill, which represents a step back in our democratic process. Indeed, as Dr Jess Garland at the Electoral Reform Society pointed out:
“The Elections Bill not only fails to take into account the comprehensive recommendations of the Committee, but continues to leave many of the most troubling loopholes in our election laws wide open.”
Many of those loopholes have been listed by previous speakers today.
Labour welcomes the “Regulating Election Finance” report published yesterday by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We certainly need this Committee more than ever. The report suggests practical steps to modernise and streamline the way donations are made. The report lays bare the damage that years of inaction by the Government has caused, undermining transparency in our democracy. A key issue at the heart of the report is the role of the independent elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission. Labour is clear that an independent watchdog is paramount in having proper accountability in our democracy. The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report overwhelmingly supports that view, recognising that an independent electoral watchdog is the cornerstone of any democracy.
I am sure that Members of the Committee were deeply concerned by the recent comments by the Conservative party co-chair, the right hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), calling for the regulator to be abolished or radically overhauled, removing all independent oversight in the conduct of our elections. The regulator needs to be stronger, not weaker. Such action would be hugely harmful and a worrying step for the integrity of our democracy, and one that Labour will continue to strongly oppose.
This week’s Elections Bill contains numerous worrying provisions that weaken and politicise the Electoral Commission, enabling the Tories to dictate the priorities and agenda of an independent watchdog. I hope that the Minister will respond to the concerns raised by the Committee’s report regarding the unbalanced membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which for the first time, as has been mentioned, has a majority of members from the governing party. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon about that. Can the Minister, who I welcome to her place, confirm that she agrees with the Committee that
“independence can be ensured only if cross-party consensus is maintained”?
The report also highlights the weaknesses in laws governing online space, which allow foreign money and untraceable advertisements to threaten our elections and the security of democracy in the UK. In my own election, I was faced with advertisements placed by an opponent who claimed she was a Nobel prize winner; that was not true, but it was hard to counter these advertisements, We need rules that ensure that the data that is used and put out can be retracted and changed, and the record can be put straight during the election, not afterwards when it is too late.
I hope the Minister will take on board the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendations to tighten the requirements to identify the true source of donations. The public deserve and need to know how money is being spent and where that money comes from. It is their vote, after all.
Labour is clear that the Government could prioritise many of these changes right now, well in advance of any election. This is urgent. What is more, the Government have a clear opportunity to use the Elections Bill to introduce the measures. Instead, we have Tory Government who are scaremongering over voter fraud and pursuing dangerous voter ID policies, instead of working to genuinely increase the transparency and accessibility of our democracy. Indeed, I note that the Bill is no longer called the electoral integrity Bill. Can the Minister explain why the name was changed? Could it be because the Bill has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with voter repression? I look forward to hearing the answer.
If the Government really want to improve the integrity of our elections, they should consider the findings of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, strengthen the regulation, close the loopholes and stop using parliamentary time to weaken the pillars of our democracy.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I should say that in the course of this debate a number of wide-ranging and wild allegations were made by some Members, without any reference to evidence. I took advice in the course of the debate to ensure that no allegation of impropriety was made against individual Members of the House and that no new crimes were alleged to have been committed. I am glad to say that all of this debate fell within fair public comment. I think it is important to say that, because of the importance of some of the things that have been said in the course of the debate.
It is a pleasure to call the Minister. Like others, I am delighted to see her back in her place.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Thank you very much, Mr Paisley. It is an absolute pleasure to return to the House in person after some illness, but it is a particular pleasure to join you this afternoon and to respond to this debate under your chairmanship.
First, I thank hon. Members for the debate that we have had. It is extremely important that these subjects have been debated this week. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for doing so with reference to his deep experience in these matters and the research that I know he and colleagues have done through their work on parliamentary Committees.
Let me also, at the outset of my speech, welcome the new hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed). It is a pleasure to have her taking part in this debate and to congratulate her on her by-election victory. She is absolutely right: social media has indeed opened up our democracy, enthused many people and engaged many new voters. That is absolutely a good thing, and I join her in welcoming it. She is also correct to say—all of us here today know this—that the key electoral legislation that we work under is old. It is 20 years old or 40 years old, in the case of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 respectively, so it is time to update it, and that is the substance of what we are talking about today.
The Government are, and I personally am, committed to upholding the integrity of our electoral system. Before I take that sober tone too far, let me give the House today the amusement of why the word “integrity”, which everyone seems so keen on, is missing from the short title of the Elections Bill. That is because it is in the long title. People will be delighted to read it there. People will find it incredibly reassuring that we want to have a Bill that talks about our elections and emphasises their integrity.
As part of our commitment, we take the regulation of election campaign finances really seriously. We already have a comprehensive regulatory framework in the legislation to which I have referred; albeit that it is decades old in establishment, it is doing its work still. That framework governs the spending and funding of candidates, political parties, third party campaigners and other campaigners at elections. Those rules help to maintain the integrity of our elections and uphold the really important principles that we will all agree on, Mr Paisley, of fairness, transparency and controls against foreign interference.
At this point, allow me to acknowledge a particularly important point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who says that we have the opportunity to lead the world. I am glad that he agrees with me, because this is indeed based on our strong democratic heritage. It is based on the work that we do with our international partners at the G7, and I commend to him the work that was publicised at this year’s G7 summit about the rapid response mechanism and, indeed, a speech that I made shortly after that about the ways in which our Defending Democracy programme here in the UK does this work internationally with our partners and domestically. The Bill that is now before the House also does this, so I will talk about how it does so, while setting out the strengths of the existing framework. I will start with donations.
It is absolutely right that voters and organisations in the UK are able to donate to political parties, to specific candidates, and to election campaigns. Our democracy is strengthened by—indeed, it is built on—the idea that people may donate to campaigns that they believe in. The transparency of that, including the regulation of donations and electoral funding, is a cornerstone of our electoral system and contributes towards a healthy democracy. UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of donations controls to ensure that only those with a genuine interest in UK electoral events can donate to candidates or registered third-party campaigners and political parties. For political parties and third- party campaigners, a donation is any contribution with a value of more than £500, while for candidates the donation threshold is £50. Donations can be accepted only from certain permissible sources, such as individuals registered on a UK electoral register, and that includes registered electors overseas.
May I say in passing, Mr Paisley, that I am really sorry that the Labour Front-Bench team seems to think that all overseas electors are in some way dodgy. They are not. They are a vital part of the fabric of our democracy and they deserve their place, which is why we are extending that part of the franchise in the Elections Bill. Donations can also be accepted from registered companies that carry out business in the UK, trade unions appearing on a relevant UK list or a UK-registered limited liability partnership or friendly society.
I also gently pick up the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who I think is misguided in the extreme—and possibly as unwise as her party leader was this week in the Opposition day debate—to try to have a go at unincorporated associations, from which her party has benefited; I hope that she will reflect on that while she tries to spray mud around. The key point I want to make here is that donations from foreign donors are not permitted. That is the key distinction, and it is the right one that we all depend on.
Turning to permissibility checks, how do we know that donations are fair? Political parties, registered parties, registered third-party campaigners and candidates are supported to carry out the necessary permissibility checks by the Electoral Commission, who provide guidance and advice. If a donation is not permissible, as we all know, it must be returned. In order to ensure accountability and transparency, as we all know, the details of donations received must be recorded and reported, including those that may be impermissible by the Electoral Commission. The commission publishes this online, ensuring that the details of donors of significant amounts are available for public scrutiny. That is one of the foundations of our system, and it is quite right. Political parties are in addition required to provide quarterly donations reports and annual accounts.
There are also important rules about proxy donations, which prevent donations from being given by a permissible donor on behalf of someone else who does not meet the relevant criteria to donate, and that means that the rules cannot be circumvented in that way. It ensures that only those people and organisations with a legitimate interest in UK elections are permitted to fund campaigns.
I want to pick up an argument that has been advanced this afternoon and that I recognise comes in the work of the APPG, led by the hon. Member for Aberavon and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It is the argument that the framework I have just outlined is not enough in itself, and that darkness may still creep in. I would share that concern if I thought that was real, but I think that the framework is enough. It is sound; it is sufficient. It rests on core principles. I look forward to more debate on this point as we get into the Elections Bill, but I want to place it on the record at this point that I think the donations framework is the right one and that it is based on sound principles. I think there is more that can be done in guidance, and a couple of hon. Members have mentioned the idea borrowed from financial services of what they would call the Know Your Client regime, or the idea that an entity can proactively check for itself where its donations or support may be coming from. I am sympathetic to those arguments. We may be able to look at providing guidance to help recipients be proactive in complying with the good framework that we have in place.
Let me turn to spending. The rules also carefully control the spending of political parties, third-party campaigners and candidates in the period before an election, as I suspect, Mr Paisley, we all know. The regulated period differs across the different elections, and we will be familiar with the lengths of time. Candidates are subject to regulation from the day when they become a candidate, and the regulated period for political parties and third-party campaigners is, for example in a UK parliamentary general election, 365 days.
At all those times, spending limits are applied. While they differ according to the type of campaigner or the specific election, these limits are in place to ensure that there is a level playing field and that no campaigner could unfairly spend more on an election campaign than anybody else. That avoids the situation that we see in some other countries, where election campaigns are all too often a fundraising race, which can be unhealthy. In the UK, our spending limits provide for an even playing field but also allow for a focus on the merits of the competing policy arguments at an election. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe that there is a debate to be had about the regulation of arguments and of what happens during election campaigns. I will not cover that in my remarks, but I acknowledge his points and look forward to addressing them on another day.
I turn again to how we know our spending framework is good. We know it is good because reports on it must be made to the Electoral Commission or the returning officer. As we all know, that includes all spending on digital campaigning as well as on more traditional campaigning methods. Information is then made available for public scrutiny, and returns for political parties and third parties are published online by the commission. Once again, that brings us back to a core principle that is already in our regulation and that should stay there in pride of place: having transparency for the public and accountability for campaigners.
Let me turn to enforcement. It is absolutely critical that measures are in place to ensure that all campaigners, including parties and candidates, follow the rules on political finance. I have just made the point that transparency and public accountability play an important role. To facilitate that, the Electoral Commission publishes and regularly updates guidance on political finance, including on donations and spending, as well as information on donations. Campaigners can also contact the Electoral Commission for advice. It is really important that the guidance is accessible and comprehensive, and I note another recommendation in the report published yesterday by the CSPL, which calls on the commission to improve its online resources and guidance. That is quite an important point, because campaigners must be supported in understanding how to comply with the rules, if this important regulatory framework is to be effective.
When political finance rules are broken, be it by a political party or a third party campaigner, the Electoral Commission has the necessary powers to investigate, has civil sanctioning powers to take action where it feels necessary, and can and does refer far more serious suspected offences to the police. Clear guidance and proportionate use of both civil and criminal sanctions are essential for ensuring compliance and communicating the seriousness of the rules.
I turn to some of the measures in the Elections Bill, which will further strengthen the rules on election campaign finances. I am acting on a recommendation in the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee’s report to introduce a new tier of registration for third party campaigners. At this point, I acknowledge the political attack that the hon. Member for Putney attempted to make, which is that somehow I have jumped the gun on the CSPL by having the temerity to publish the Elections Bill this week. I am not sure that she can have it both ways. I have spent years listening to and reading recommendations from all quarters to ensure that the Bill is as good as it can be. I welcome the CSPL’s work and that of many Committees, and I suggest that we now get on with the Bill.
Under the new rules, campaigners spending more than £10,000 on regulated campaign expenditure during a regulated period anywhere across the UK will be required to register with the Electoral Commission. That is particularly important, with digital campaigning proving far more cost-effective than traditional offline campaigning. The rules will ensure that campaigners spending significant amounts of money in any of those ways are transparent and accountable to the public—again, that is one of the core principles. The Bill will also protect the integrity of spending limits, and the even playing field that they provide, by removing the potential for anybody to register as both a political party and a non-party campaigner at the same time. I find it breathtaking that this has actually happened—a campaign group has done both, which is a slap in the face for those who believe that we should have a level playing field and that spending limits mean something.
I turn now to another thing that our Bill does: there will be provisions to clarify the law on notional expenditure for candidates. This clarification is intended to restore the understanding widely held before a Supreme Court ruling in 2018. It is really important that candidates are liable only for benefits in kind that they use themselves or that they or their agent directed, authorised or encouraged someone to use on the candidate’s behalf. Doing that will allow candidates and agents to have confidence in their legal responsibilities again. It is really important that those involved in campaigning, spending and reporting—particularly volunteers, as election agents often are—understand their responsibilities and can execute their duties with certainty.
A theme that we will return to time and again with the Elections Bill is the broad-based nature of our politics in this country. It is something to be proud of that our democracy is built on volunteers and grassroots participation. I acknowledge that there will be an argument for taking regulation to the extreme degree. One of the recommendations in the report by the hon. Members for Aberavon and for Edinburgh North and Leith and their APPG, which I have read carefully, is to reduce to zero the threshold for non-cash donations, for example.[Official Report, 18 August 2021, Vol. 699, c. 12MC.] I am concerned that such a recommendation might damage that space for legitimate grassroots participation in our democracy inside this country, which I will defend to my dying day. I am sure we will return to that in further debates, but I thought it helpful to set out my thinking on that at this point.
I will turn to digital imprints, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe rightly focused when he said that he is seeking transparency of funding and of information. That is really important, and I entirely agree with him. I am proud that the Elections Bill will do something world-leading. Not many countries have so far succeeded in doing that, so it is really important that we take the opportunity to do that and do it well.
We are seeking to introduce a digital imprints regime for digital campaigning material. The importance of doing so is widely recognised. We have consulted in depth on the policy to ensure that we create something that will stand the test of time. As set out in the most recent Government response to our consultation, the new regime will require those behind online political adverts and other digital campaign material targeted at the UK electorate to declare themselves all year round, wherever they may be in the world, providing greater levels of transparency to online campaigning. We are also empowering the relevant authorities to access the information that they need, including from social media companies, to investigate suspected offences. As I have mentioned, through those proposals we will be introducing some of the most comprehensive digital imprint rules in the world. I really look forward to giving them the correct scrutiny through the Elections Bill.
I draw my remarks on this area to a close by thanking the Committee on Standards in Public Life for its review, which many hon. Members have spoken about. It included recommendations on a range of fronts. I am pleased to say that we are already taking forward a number of the recommendations as part of the Bill, including the new requirement for political parties to declare if they have assets and liabilities of more than £500 when registering with the Electoral Commission, and if so, to provide details on them.
Furthermore, the Bill will meet the CSPL’s call for the Government to ban foreign organisations or individuals from buying campaign advertising in the UK. We will do that by restricting all third-party campaign expenditure to UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners during a regulated period before an election. That will safeguard our democracy from foreign interference, in addition to a number of other measures—domestically and with our partners—to defend our democracy.
The Government keep all the rules on elections under close review. Therefore, in addition to what we are bringing forward in the Bill and what we have already covered today, I always welcome reports such as that of the CSPL and other bodies, because they help us to reflect on the most precious thing we have—our democracy.
I again thank the hon. Members who secured today’s debate, and all those who have contributed to it. We have heard a number of arguments begin to be drawn out today, following in the tradition of the reports, investigations and evidence that have been drawn together by parliamentary Committees and—as I mentioned—by the many years of work that go into bringing a Bill before this House. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have begun to engage with those arguments, and that there will be much more to do as we go through the process of the Elections Bill. I really look forward to those debates.
My fundamental argument throughout will be that the existing framework is strong. It is built on the right principles and it serves us well, albeit it needs updating for our age, which, as I have outlined, is what we are doing, particularly with digital imprints. The rules on funding and spending in election campaigns—including, as I have said, by political parties, third-party campaigners and candidates—prize transparency and fairness, while placing important controls on foreign funding and spending. The Electoral Commission has a rightly important role to play in providing guidance to help campaigners comply with the rules. Both the commission and the police have the necessary investigatory and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the law. As I have said, there will be further measures in the Bill to strengthen those existing principles by increasing transparency, preserving the integrity of spending limits, and extending the prohibition on foreign spending in elections.
The Government remain 100% committed to ensuring that our elections are secure, fair, modern and transparent. That is why I am very pleased to have been part of today’s debate.
Damian Collins
I thank the Minister for her response. I agree that it is good that the Elections Bill has been published: as she said, there has been a very lengthy period of consultation of many of the aspects of that Bill, so it is good to see it published. I am sure that Members will have the opportunity to consider the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life alongside the Bill as it goes through its stages in both Houses of Parliament.
I thank the Members who have taken part in the debate: the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I think it says something about the Putney constituency that someone tried to claim they had won a Nobel prize to impress its voters in an election—high standards are expected by the electorate there! I also say to the hon. Member for Aberavon that we seemed to struggle in the debate with different variations on the pronunciation of “Aberavon”, which I think is a consequence of “Grandstand” no longer broadcasting the Welsh rugby results live on Saturdays. Every other week, Aberavon would be the first name out of the hat.
We have had a very good debate on a very important set of issues. The Minister is right to say that the principles that underpin our system are well known, and they are based on transparency and fairness. The important challenge we face now is to make sure that those principles can be translated into the digital world, which is a harder challenge than we have faced before, because in the system as we knew it before digital campaigning many safety brakes were built into the system.
Editors of newspapers are liable for the adverts that they publish; in some cases, the printers of leaflets have a liability for the leaflets that they publish; and so on. There is not the same level of transparency in the way that digital systems work, which is why the law requires reform and change. I am grateful for the debate we have had, and for the opportunity to discuss some of those points this afternoon.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Could I just reassure the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) that I have done a TikTok dance?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the regulation of election campaign finances.
Written Statements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Annual Human Rights and Democracy Report 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2020 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) report on human rights and democracy (CP No. 458).
The report analyses human rights developments overseas in 2020 and illustrates how the Government work to promote and defend human rights globally.
The report assesses the situation in 31 countries, which the FCDO has designated as its human rights priority countries. These are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
This is the first human rights report published by the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It therefore reflects the importance and strength of diplomacy and development working side-by-side to defend human rights and democracy. The report highlights our leadership on promoting media freedom, gender equality, girls’ education and LGBT+ rights, our work to eradicate modern slavery, our partnerships with human rights defenders, and our commitment to deliver change for those who are abused, targeted, or killed for their religion or beliefs.
[HCWS159]
Communications Act 2003: 10th Report on Secretary of State’s Functions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
The Government have today laid a report before Parliament to fulfil their statutory duty under section 390 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 390 of the Communications Act 2003 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament reports about the performance of the Secretary of State’s functions under the following legislation:
the Communications Act 2003;
the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006;
the Office of Communications Act 2002; and
the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.
This rectifies a historic oversight in discharging this statutory duty since the ninth report was laid in February 2014. Notwithstanding this oversight, the Government have been fully transparent because each time a power has been used, the relevant parliamentary procedure has been followed and/or a public/parliamentary announcement has been made. A retrospective report to cover the period to 28 December 2020 is now, however, being laid to correct this.
The Department accepts full responsibility and apologises. Action has been taken to ensure the Department fulfils this statutory duty on an annual basis. The report will be published on gov.uk and a copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS160]
UK’s First Periodic Report: Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and Protocols
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I am pleased to announce the submission of the UK’s first periodic report to UNESCO on our implementation of the 1954 Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and its two protocols of 1954 and 1999.
The convention and its two protocols are intended to protect cultural property from damage, destruction, looting and unlawful removal during armed conflict. The UK ratified the convention and acceded to its two protocols in 2017 following the passing of the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 which made provision in domestic UK law for the requirements of the convention and protocols.
The report sets out the roles of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, who are responsible for the safeguarding of cultural property in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, and the measures each has taken to ensure that we are delivering our obligations under the convention and its protocols.
The report details the ways in which the UK Government have monitored the implementation of the convention and its two protocols over the past four years. It outlines measures taken by the Government, the armed forces and other associated parties including UNESCO, the British Red Cross, Blue Shield, the National Trust and Historic England to ensure that we are delivering our obligations under the convention and its protocols.
The UK Government remain wholly committed to safeguarding cultural heritage in conflict and crisis settings across the world.
The report is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-first-periodic-report-implementation-of-the-1954-hague-convention-and-protocols.
I will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS162]
National Funding Formula Reforms
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today, the Government are publishing a consultation document on the schools national funding formula (NFF), entitled “Fair School Funding For All: Completing Our Reforms To The National Funding Formula”. This is an important step in our work to ensure that every school and academy trust has the right resources so that they can continue to drive up academic standards, as the school system recovers from the impact of the pandemic.
We are delivering the biggest increase in education funding in a decade, with additional funding of £2.6 billion in 2020-21, £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23, compared to 2019-20: in total, over £14 billion across the three years.
We know it is critical that this investment is distributed fairly between all areas of the country and all schools. We have already taken significant steps to make the school funding system fairer.
The introduction of the schools NFF in 2018-19 means that funding is now distributed more fairly across the country. This was a major step forward from the postcode lottery of the previous funding system, in which historical funding levels, rather than current needs, drove the distribution of funding. A majority of local authorities have moved their funding formulae towards the NFF since its introduction in 2018-19, and 73 local authorities of 150 are now mirroring the NFF funding factors almost exactly.
As we set out when we introduced the NFF, our long-term goal is that every school’s final funding allocation is determined by the same, national formula, and is no longer subject to further adjustment by local authorities. The current consultation presents our proposals for how such an NFF, directly applied to schools’ budgets, should operate. It also sets out the next steps to ensure a smooth transition towards this goal.
This reform will bring several benefits for schools. It will ensure a fair funding system, with funding for every school matched to a consistent assessment of need. It will make the funding system simpler and more transparent for all involved. It will also help to underpin our ambition for all schools to be part of a strong multi-academy trust, so that all schools within each trust will be funded on a consistent basis, regardless of which local authority they are located in. This will provide academy trusts with the predictability needed to make the best use of resources to further raise academic standards.
The Government are mindful that completing the reforms of the NFF represents a significant further change for the school system. In the consultation, we present proposals to move local funding formulae progressively closer to the NFF to achieve greater fairness and consistency in funding. This will provide the opportunity to consider the impact of each step before making the next move. We are determined to complete these reforms and secure the benefits that they will bring, but we want to move carefully towards this end goal over the coming years, working with schools, academy trusts, local authorities and sector organisations to ensure that the transition is a smooth one.
The consultation will be open for 12 weeks, concluding on 30 September 2021. We plan to publish more detailed proposals in a second stage consultation over the winter following feedback to the first consultation.
[HCWS165]
Desogestrel Contraceptive: Availability from Pharmacies
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I am pleased to announce that officials in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have granted two marketing authorisations to allow the supply through pharmacies of the progestogen-only oral contraceptive—desogestrel—as an over-the-counter medicine. This follows a rigorous review of the safety of this medicine by the Commission on Human Medicines and a public consultation. The response to the public consultation which was carried out as part of the regulatory assessment is also being made publicly available today. The MHRA has a long-established process for reclassifying medicines from prescription-only status to being made available for purchase over the counter when it is safe to do so.
This landmark reclassification, which was widely supported by women and healthcare professionals in the recent consultation, will enable women to purchase a progestogen-only contraceptive from a pharmacy following a detailed consultation with the pharmacist. This will provide an additional route to access for those seeking contraceptive services and will help to reduce the pressure on GP surgeries and sexual health clinics with the potential to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Pharmacists already provide a range of services in the area of sexual and reproductive health and are trained practitioners who are experienced in checking eligibility for all the products they supply.
The reclassification of desogestrel to a pharmacy medicine supports the Government’s wider commitments to improve women’s health and to ensure the public receive the best possible sexual health and contraception services. A new sexual and reproductive health strategy and a new women’s health strategy in England are in development, to be published later this year. The women’s health strategy will have an overarching aim of improving the health and wellbeing of women and the sexual and reproductive health strategy will set out ambitions to reduce inequalities in sexual and reproductive health outcomes, and will include a focus on improving reproductive health and access to contraception.
This reclassification is therefore an important step towards meeting our ambitions to improve women’s health by widening access and providing women with more choice in the provision of safe and effective contraception. Progestogen-only contraception will continue to be available free from prescription charge from GPs and sexual and reproductive health services as is the case for all prescribed contraception.
[HCWS158]
Dame Carol Black’s Independent Review of Drugs: Publication of Part 2
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Part 1 of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs was published last February and provided this Government with detailed analytical insights into the complexities of the illicit drugs market. It highlighted the considerable scale of the challenge we face with an illicit drugs market in England and Wales worth £10billion a year and 3 million users of illicit drugs in the same population.
The drugs trade is also intrinsically linked to the crime experienced in our communities: 45% of all acquisitive crime is committed by people who regularly use heroin, cocaine or crack cocaine and nearly half of homicides are drug related. Increases in global production and supply have led to a violent and exploitative supply chain in which ruthless criminal gangs exploit children and vulnerable people in our communities. This cannot and will not continue.
This Government remain committed to tackling drugs and the harm they cause to individuals, families and communities. Since part 1 of Dame Carol’s review was published, we have built a powerful set of policies in co-operation with police and operational partners to tackle drug supply, exploitative criminal gangs, and we have increased drug treatment funding for 2021-22. We are also piloting a more co-ordinated approach to treatment and recovery support in some high areas of need.
In January 2021, we announced £148 million of new money to cut crime and protect people from the harms caused by illegal drugs. This has delivered the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years. The funding means that we are delivering more interventions to reduce the number of drug-related deaths and we are making sure that more drugs users in contact with the criminal justice system get the treatment they need to reduce the amount of offending associated with drug dependency. It also ensured £40 million of dedicated funding is invested in tackling drugs supply and county lines. This has allowed us to expand and build upon the successful results of our county lines programme. This has seen over 780 lines closed, 5,000 arrests and 1,220 safeguards since it was launched in November 2019.
It is my honour to announce that today part 2 of Dame Carol’s review has been published, providing this Government with concrete evidence-based recommendations for how we can reduce the demand for illegal drugs, turn the tide on drug related deaths and get more people into higher quality services. It intelligently and clearly wraps up three years of research and investigation into the treatment and recovery system and I would like to thank Dame Carol for her dedication to this agenda and for this accomplished review.
As part 2 highlights, many Departments of State need to redouble their efforts to tackle drug supply and also provide a stronger system of treatment and recovery support to people dependent on drugs, particularly those in contact with the criminal justice system. That is why I am pleased that today we can announce the establishment of a new joint combating drugs unit to co-ordinate and drive a genuinely whole-of-Government approach to drug policy, recognising that treatment alone is not enough and that housing and employment support is essential to aid recovery. This Government are determined to address the challenges raised in the review and the new Unit will oversee the Government’s response to Dame Carol’s recommendations which apply to numerous Departments across Government.
I am pleased to announce that in the coming weeks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, along with the Minister for Crime and Policing, will publish an initial Government response to the findings in part 1 and part 2 of the independent review. This response will set out our clear cross-Government commitment to this agenda and to taking effective action given the urgency of addressing these issues. Dame Carol has made a powerful case for a comprehensive drug treatment and recovery system coupled with the need for a more effective approach to enforcement. While many aspects of drug policy are devolved, we will continue to build partnership and collaboration with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments on significant UK-wide issues. The Government response to Dame Carol’s reviews provide a fantastic opportunity to engage with our colleagues and partners on combating drug misuse.
A copy of part 2 of Dame Carol’s Review will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS167]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 March 2021 to 31 May 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 May 2021) 5 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 3 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 May 2021) 5 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (duringusb the reporting period) 3 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 1 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during this the reporting period) 4
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
On 29th May 2021 one individual was remanded having been charged with two breaches of the monitoring measure of the TPIM notice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. Second quarter TRG meetings will be held throughout June 2021.
[HCWS161]
Free Trade Agreement: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Today, Norway’s Trade Minister Iselin Nybø, Iceland’s Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson, Liechtenstein’s Foreign Minister Dominique Hasler, and I are signing the United Kingdom-Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in London. This is another trade deal that the United Kingdom has struck as an independent trading nation, in which our partners have gone further and faster than they have with anyone else in a number of areas, demonstrating what is possible between trusted trading partners.
It is the first time these three European countries have included dedicated chapters on small businesses and digital trade in any trade deal, including some of the most liberalising and modern digital trade provisions in the world, which simplify customs procedures, cutting red tape and making it easier than ever for our businesses to export across borders. Electronic documents, contracts and signatures will result in less paperwork, saving British firms time and money. Their offer to the United Kingdom on services and investment goes beyond what they have offered other FTA partners to date. Innovative FinTech firms will be able to provide financial services into Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, without having to provide that service elsewhere first, helping the United Kingdom to maintain its status as a financial services hub.
The agreement contains robust commitments on trade and sustainable development, demonstrating our shared global leadership on pressing issues such as climate change and protects our “right to regulate”, supporting us in meeting our ambitious domestic climate targets, including net zero for the United Kingdom.
Building on our current goods agreement, this agreement will cut more Norwegian tariffs on high-quality British food and farm products and could help support British fish processing industries from Grimsby to Grampian with further reductions on our tariffs on certain white fish, shrimps and prawns. The agreement could help support businesses in every corner of our country, helping to grow a trading relationship already worth £21.6 billion in 2020.1
This deal will deliver more opportunities for key British sectors especially those providing financial, legal, and other professional services. It will allow businesses in all sectors to send their staff on business visits or to provide services contracts to these countries, as well as the ability to transfer them for longer term projects. It means those with professional qualifications will have clear routes for the recognition of their qualifications for regulated professions. In addition, the agreement opens up new opportunities for British businesses to bid for a wider range of Government contracts in these countries.
HM Government is committed to transparency and the effective scrutiny of our trade negotiations. Following today’s signature of the FTA, I can announce that the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be formally presenting the signed treaty text and related documents to Parliament before the summer recess for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance (CRaG) Act procedure. Laying ahead of summer recess ensures that the House has the maximum amount of time to scrutinise the detail of our trade deal.
Alongside the treaty text, we will lay an explanatory memorandum. An impact assessment of our trade deal, and a parliamentary report providing an overview of the deal, will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses at the same time. All of the documents will be published on gov.uk in parallel.
[HCWS163]
1 ONS, UK total trade: all countries, non-seasonally adjusted: October to December 2020
Crossrail: Annual Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement: Total funding amounts provided to Crossrail Ltd by the Department for Transport and TfL in relation to the construction of Crossrail to the end of the period (22 July 2008 to 29 May 2021) £14,893,427,506 Expenditure incurred (including committed land and property spend not yet paid out) by Crossrail Ltd in relation to the construction of Crossrail in the period (30 May 2020 to 29 May 2021) (excluding recoverable VAT on land and property purchases) £813,125,000 Total expenditure incurred (including committed land and property spend not yet paid out) by Crossrail Ltd in relation to the construction of Crossrail to the end of the period (22 July 2008 to 29 May 2021) (excluding recoverable VAT on land and property purchases) £15,785,802,000 The amounts realised by the disposal of any land or property for the purposes of the construction of Crossrail by the Secretary of State, TfL or Crossrail Ltd in the period covered by the statement NIL
In October 2020, the governance of Crossrail transferred over to Transport for London (TfL).
As part of the governance transition, the Crossrail sponsor board was stood down and the Mayor of London, who chairs the TfL board, established a new special purpose committee of the TfL board, called the Elizabeth line committee (ELC). The ELC is chaired by the Deputy Mayor for Transport and provides high-level oversight of the Crossrail project.
The TfL transport commissioner is now responsible for the successful delivery of the project and realising the required benefits. The commissioner chairs the Elizabeth line delivery group (ELDG), which was also established as part of the governance transition, to bring together the key TfL executives responsible for bringing the Elizabeth line into operation. The TfL transport commissioner reports to the ELC.
The transition of governance moves the Crossrail programme closer to TfL as future operator of the Elizabeth line, allowing it to bring management focus and effort, to “pull” the Elizabeth line into operation. These changes were a positive and essential step as we move closer to delivering the full operational railway.
Major construction work on the project is now completed and trial running began on 10 May.
Given the commencement of trial running and the transfer of governance to Transport for London, this will be the last annual written ministerial statement on Crossrail.
Further details on CRL’s funding and finances in the period to 29 May 2021 are set out in the table. The relevant information is as follows:
The numbers above are drawn from CRL’s books of accounts and have been prepared on a consistent basis with the update provided last year. The figure for expenditure incurred includes monies already paid out in the relevant period, including committed land and property expenditure where this has not yet been paid. It does not include future expenditure on contracts that have been awarded.
[HCWS157]
Disability Benefits: End-of-life Support
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government are committed to supporting people nearing the end of their lives. The current Special Rules for Terminal Illness (SRTI) have been in place, unchanged since 1990 and the support they provide to people who find themselves in this terrible situation is crucial.
In response to requests for a review of the special rules the Department for Work and Pensions undertook a wide-ranging evaluation into how the benefits system in Great Britain supports those nearing the end of their lives. I can now provide honourable Members with an update on the outcome of the evaluation.
We have listened to the views of people nearing the end of their lives, their families and friends, the organisations supporting them and the healthcare professionals involved in their care, and I would like to thank all who contributed their views on this important subject.
I am today setting out the Department’s intention to replace the current 6 month rule with a 12 month, end of life approach. This will mirror the current definition of end of life used across the NHS and ensure that people receive vital support through the special rules six months earlier than they do now. Supporting people nearing the end of their lives is a priority for my Department and I am pleased to be taking this step forward. The evaluation report will be published alongside the upcoming health & disability green paper.
[HCWS166]
Plan for Jobs: Supporting People Back Into Work
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Department for Work and Pensions has been at the heart of helping to deliver the Government’s plan for jobs to support, protect and create jobs following the pandemic. A year on from its launch, I want to update the House on the progress we have made helping people across the country to move into work or gain the skills and experience that will open up job opportunities as the economy reopens and we build back better.
To ensure we can provide the vital employment support to help people get back into work, we have boosted our frontline jobseeker capacity and capability in towns and cities right across the country. Meeting our target in March to recruit 13,500 new work coaches, we have created Britain’s biggest ever jobs army and secured premises for 139 additional Jobcentres, 52 of which are already open. We have also opened 138 new youth hubs, co-located and co-delivered with our external partners, which are delivering a mix of face-to-face and digital support to young people.
Kickstart
Young people have been affected more than most by the pandemic, with many having had the rug pulled from under them at a critical time. Our kickstart scheme has been helping them land on their feet, with over 40,000 so far benefiting from work placements, gaining valuable skills, experience and confidence to build their future careers. It is fantastic to see that some kickstart graduates have already secured new jobs. As of 30 June, over 243,000 jobs have been approved for funding. With over 145,000 vacancies having been made available for young people to apply for, we are seeing more starts every day and we are working with employers to fill roles.
Alongside support offered across our nationwide network of Jobcentres, we have rapidly introduced a range of provision delivered through external providers, offering targeted and local help to job seekers.
JETS
For those out of work for three months or more, JETS—our job entry: targeted support scheme—has so far helped propel over 5,300 people into jobs by providing personalised support, including specialist advice on how they can move into growing sectors, CV advice and interview coaching. Up to the end of May there had been over 112,000 starts on the scheme in England and Wales since it launched in October last year and over 4,700 starts since the scheme started in Scotland in January this year.
SWAPS
We know some sectors have been impacted more than others during the pandemic and that many people will be looking for work in entirely different sectors. That is why SWAPs—our sector-based work academy programme—is helping people reskill, retrain and move towards growing sectors like construction, infrastructure and social care. Last financial year, 64,500 people benefited from this support, and we have increased the number of available placements to 80,000 to enable more people to take advantage.
Job finding support
Our job-finding support is providing digital help and support for newly unemployed people. Delivered online, and so available throughout covid restrictions, it provides one-to-one advice and group support to help familiarise jobseekers with recruitment practices, identify transferable skills, and develop a personalised job finding action plan.
Restart
And as our economy restarts, our £2.9 billion restart scheme is now offering a fresh start for a million long-term unemployed people in England and Wales. Specialist providers, charities and SMEs are complementing the important work of jobcentres to provide additional expertise, investment, innovation and capacity for tailored support.
With the success of the vaccine roll-out and as we continue to open our economy and society, there are encouraging improvements in the employment figures, a continued rise in vacancies, and increasing numbers of people on company payrolls.
The Government plan for jobs, through the coronavirus job retention scheme and other support, has protected jobs and kept millions of people connected to the labour market during our emergency response to the pandemic. Now, through the continued delivery of our part of plan for jobs, we are helping get Britain back on its feet.
[HCWS168]
Minimum Income Floor, Universal Credit Gainful Self-employment Tests and Start-up Periods
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
To support self-employed universal credit claimants through the pandemic, in March 2020 the Government introduced a temporary suspension of the minimum income floor (MIF), removed the requirement for gainful self-employment (GSE) tests and paused start-up periods.
We have always been clear that these would be temporary measures, keeping them under review in light of the latest economic and public health context; as such, we have extended the MIF suspension on two occasions since March 2020.
With the success of the vaccine rollout and rising demand as the economy reopens, it is right that we now begin to reinstate our normal processes. Therefore, we are reintroducing the MIF, GSE tests and start-up periods when existing regulations expire on 31 July.
To ensure everyone has time to prepare, claimants will be given a month’s notice that the MIF is being applied and no one will see a decrease in their universal credit award before September. As an additional safety net for those whose businesses continue to be heavily impacted by covid-19 restrictions, work coaches will be able to provide a suspension of the MIF for up to two months at a time on a case-by-case basis, for a maximum of three suspensions, adding up to six months in total.
The vast majority of claimants found to be gainfully self-employed will benefit from a one-year start-up period. Anyone who was in a start-up period when the easement came into effect in March 2020 will also not have the MIF applied for the balance remaining on their start-up period at that time.
Claimants who continue to be gainfully self-employed and are not entitled to a start-up period, will have the MIF applied. These claimants will be exempt from having to search for, or take up, any other employment, allowing them to concentrate on making a success of their business and maximising their returns up to and beyond the level of their MIF.
Claimants who are found not to be gainfully self-employed will receive support to move into employment through our comprehensive multi-billion-pound plan for jobs which is helping millions of people across the country. Our specialist work coaches will consider the circumstances of each claimant individually, so it will take time to return to our normal processes.
These new regulations, with the additional protection and support they contain, will be in place for one year, running up to and including 31 July 2022. To prevent there being any further delay to new claimants getting the support they need, all new claims during this period will have a gainful self-employment assessment at the start of their claim in the usual way.
[HCWS164]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the first item of business is one hour.
Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 June 2021, be approved.
The Regulation on Accreditation and Market Surveillance, 765/2008, known as RAMS, is the current market surveillance legislation for the UK and is included under the Northern Ireland protocol. It is worth noting that RAMS continues to apply in Great Britain, as it now forms part of our domestic law. The EU Market Surveillance and Compliance of Products Regulation, EU 2019/1020, which I will refer to as MSC, will replace RAMS and therefore, under the protocol obligation, MSC will apply in Northern Ireland. However, the enforcement system for both regulations will be similar, with both based on risk and proportionality.
The SI we are here to debate sets out to implement a uniform set of regulatory powers to avoid gaps and inconsistencies when the RAMS provisions are repealed in Northern Ireland on 16 July. These powers will be available to market surveillance authorities that operate within Northern Ireland. It results in some minor operational changes and a number of new traceability requirements for businesses placing products on the Northern Ireland market. The SI will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland continue to be protected from potentially unsafe and non-compliant products, whether that is gas appliances, radio equipment, lifts or PPE, via the UK’s robust product safety framework.
Within the UK, market surveillance authorities have the vital role of ensuring that products are safe and compliant. They can also take action as needed when unsafe and non-compliant products are discovered. This reduces the risk to consumers. Noble Lords will agree that the protection of UK consumers is a vital role for government. This SI applies to Northern Ireland. It will provide market surveillance authorities with the necessary regulatory powers to carry out this invaluable work. It will also provide effective, appropriate and proportionate sanctions for breaches of the regulations. Market surveillance authorities will continue to monitor and, where appropriate, enforce in Northern Ireland all the requirements of product safety law outlined in this SI. I will now consider areas covered by the SI in more detail.
A key objective of the SI is to provide a consistent set of regulatory powers to market surveillance authorities with respect to Northern Ireland. Although most of these powers already exist across the current suite of product legislation, they are not consistent. This is not in the interests of the consumer, so we need to take action. Therefore, we will introduce a uniform set of regulatory powers. These will consolidate the powers already available to market surveillance authorities. The SI will make these powers expressly available in respect of a range of products to the extent they are needed. We have set out powers in this SI which are drawn from existing goods legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order, the Consumer Rights Act and the Consumer Protection Act. Market surveillance authorities will therefore have consistent access to the regulatory tools they are familiar with in other goods legislation. These tools include compliance, recall and withdrawal notices.
Turning now to offences, the inclusion of criminal offences within this legislation is again consistent with the existing UK-wide sanctions regime for products, and therefore illustrates that market surveillance sanctions are not new. I confirm that the penalties for such offences within this SI are at the lower end of the range of penalties within the existing regime, and that this SI ensures that offences remain available to market surveillance authorities. It contains offences in respect of withdrawal and recall notices, offences relating to obstructing an investigation and offences for breaches of MSC. The offences under this statutory instrument will give rise to a maximum fine of up to level 5, which is currently £5,000, or up to level 3, which is currently £1,000, on the standard scale, depending on the offence. These will not have provision for imprisonment and will be heard in a magistrates’ court. The offences are expected to be prosecuted only in rare circumstances and when necessary, primarily to protect consumers from unsafe products and to address deliberate or persistent non-compliance.
There is a new requirement in MSC: Article 4, which requires a business supplying certain goods to have a responsible person based in the EU or Northern Ireland. This can be a manufacturer, importer, authorised representative or a fulfilment service, and they must undertake certain compliance responsibilities to be able to place certain goods on the EU or Northern Ireland market. The requirement in Article 4 is directly applicable, and this SI provides for enforcement mechanisms for a breach of that requirement. Many businesses supplying customers in Northern Ireland or the EU already have the necessary arrangements in place.
On 11 June, my department published Article 4 guidance for businesses and market surveillance authorities, answering many of the questions that businesses may have. We have actively engaged with a wide range of organisations to ensure that businesses engage with the guidance. We have a comprehensive plan to work further with trade associations and businesses to ensure that they understand the requirements and support available. My officials will continue assisting business organisations to ensure that MSC does not place a disproportionate burden on trade into Northern Ireland for businesses that do not already have a person responsible for compliance, while ensuring that the product safety framework itself remains robust and effective. Additionally, my department is offering MSC-specific training to all market surveillance authorities to support consistent understanding of its application across the regulatory landscape.
This SI is required under the withdrawal agreement, which is given effect in domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the subsequent protocol. MSC itself is directly applicable, as an EU regulation, meaning that no action is needed on the part of EU member states, and as such, it applies in Northern Ireland under the protocol. It is important to emphasise that while MSC requires businesses in some product sectors to have a person responsible for compliance, established in the EU or Northern Ireland, it does not create new burdens on the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As set out following the last withdrawal agreement Joint Committee in June 2021, the UK has taken extensive steps already to operate the protocol, both by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and by businesses across the United Kingdom. This reflects that we will continue to operate the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way, focused at all times on minimising its impact on day-to-day lives in Northern Ireland. I must emphasise that the MSC regulation and our implementation of it will not create checks on goods from Great Britain.
In summary, this SI ensures that Northern Ireland consumers remain protected from potentially unsafe and non-compliant products and will implement the legislative requirement of the protocol, which will bring a new aspect to market surveillance and ensure that there are no regulatory gaps within the area of product safety. This will result in the maintenance across the UK of a cohesive and effective regulatory regime for manufactured products which will protect all UK consumers, including those in Northern Ireland. The Government will of course ensure that they monitor the implementation of the new regulation and that they continue to work with businesses and market surveillance authorities to help them adapt, providing the necessary guidance and support where needed.
I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his usual comprehensive introduction. I know that when the Government speak to any business in your Lordships’ House, they always speak with one voice, and I am sure that we heard only the voice we were meant to hear. However, it was striking that quite a lot of the paragraphs he read out perhaps did not come originally from his pen or that of his department. He does not need to comment on that if he does not want to, but I felt there were messages in what he said that were intended for a wider audience than the rather small one that, perhaps unfortunately, has gathered here today.
I have a couple of questions about the Explanatory Memorandum and a couple of points to make relating to what the Minister said. Paragraph 7.10 states:
“The Government is currently undertaking a wider review of the UK product safety system, including approaches to securing compliance and the role of criminal sanctions in product safety regulation, and the scope for greater use of civil sanctions.”
There is not much detail on that—perhaps the Minister could give a sense of the timescale for that work. Given that, in a sense, it will probably overtake this SI, will it have an immediate or a medium-term effect?
Despite having looked at many SIs in my time as a Front-Bencher, including ones which stem from the original legislation, I was caught out towards the end of paragraph 7.11 by the reference to the fact that
“the SI works on a lex specialis principle”,
in other words,
“where there is a more specific provision in the sectorial legislation, this will take priority.”
That rather shades some of what the Minister was saying about trying to achieve a commonality of approach between GB and Northern Ireland. Without more detail, it is difficult to judge exactly how that will operate. Perhaps when he responds he can give us some examples of how the lex specialis principle might affect the SI. I should also be grateful to know where I might find the original legislation on that. If he does not have the information to hand, I should of course be happy to have a letter from him.
I turn to some more general points that the Minister may like to pick up on, and which I am sure my noble friend Lord Bassam will also refer to. The Minister said that this is effectively a levelling-up SI, in the sense of trying to ensure continuity and minimal change, but there is obviously an issue here about the need to establish an economic operator in Northern Ireland for compliance activities or, as he said, in the EU, if companies want to sell goods into Northern Ireland. We should not gloss over the fact that companies will be affected by that. That is a change that I do not think was anticipated—I have never seen reference to it before—but we have it before us now. It is certainly something to reflect on.
I see no references in the SI or the Explanatory Memorandum to reviewing the impact of this measure. Indeed, because it is a process that flows from the EU withdrawal Act, no review is specifically required. The Minister said that this will not have an impact on British businesses and will not affect businesses that bring products from GB to the EU through Northern Ireland, or just to Northern Ireland itself. Given the current heated situation and the concern about sausages, for example, it would be helpful to have a review. Will the Minister commit to indicating how this is playing out in practice further down the line, even if not to a formal review?
Secondly, what will the situation on the ground be like when the regulations are enforced? The Minister said that the approach is proportionate, risk-based and intelligence-led, which suggests that a fairly extensive set of procedures are in place. Assessing proportionality is not always easy; knowing what the risks are is not always possible; and “intelligence-led” suggests that this will be a joint activity involving the security services and others.
What does that mean in practice? I travel regularly between the UK and Ireland, and I have observed substantial changes in procedures and practices at the Irish ports I travel through. Of course, this is ad hominem and I am not trying to make a general point, but it is clear to me that the amount of paperwork and interrogation that takes place now compared to a few months’ ago is significant. Again, this is not going to be subject to any review, but perhaps the Minister will commit to giving us further information on how this is actually playing out in practice. I think that, following the recent Act, there will be more activity and disruption than he suggested.
On a related point, the language used in the SI and in the discussion led by the Minister has largely been about physical goods, but presumably, this also applies to electronic trade—trade through the internet—and other services delivered online. Has any particular aspect of that been brought into this? My recollection of the previous legislation is that, although it was very much about goods and not very much about services, it also impacted on electronic trade. This might be worthy of further consideration, and I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts when he responds.
Finally, the application of the market surveillance regulation in Northern Ireland was, as the Minister said, a critical commitment and the Government support it. But of course, we are not unaware of the fact that the protocol itself is a matter of contention, and indeed, further discussions are continuing even as we speak. Is the Minister able to opine on whether he thinks this a relatively settled operation that does not require further debate or opening up in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol? If so, can he explain the thinking behind that? Clearly, it deals with the sort of goods and services that the Government said would not be interrupted because of the special status of Northern Ireland in both the UK and the EU customs area. It would be useful to know whether that is a serious issue of concern to the Government that is likely be raised again, or whether it is now settled.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for carefully explaining the regulations and offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara for his forensic examination of the detail.
There is an irony to this discussion, is there not? As my noble friend said, the Northern Ireland protocol is the subject of hot and contentious discussion, and yet, listening to the Minister one would sense that this is all agreed and straightforward and a regular instance of legislative implementation without any back story, but of course, that is far from the case. My friends in Northern Ireland tell me that they would quite like there to be a bit more market surveillance, in the sense that they would like to see some more goods on the shelves in the shops they use. But sadly, things that we take for granted they can no longer do.
However, as the memorandum says, these regulations do provide for an effective and proportionate penalty regime for breaches of the regulations, and the EU’s new market surveillance regulation, which comes into effect on 16 July, is designed to provide greater protection for consumers in the face of the challenges posed by e-commerce, to which my noble friend referred. As I understand it, the intention is that, through the extension of compliance checks for products sold online, consumers can be assured that products they order online meet EU harmonised standards for both health and safety. However, how and where will these checks be carried out, and by whom?
By virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, the market surveillance regulation is directly applicable to Northern Ireland, although further provisions of the regulations require implementation in our domestic legislation, which is what the regulations are designed to do. It is clear that the regulations are designed to protect consumers and are required to meet our legal commitments under the trade and co-operation agreement and the protocol, so for that reason, we obviously would not want to oppose them.
However, I do have a few more questions for the Minister. First, the implementation of the market surveillance regulation in Northern Ireland will of course have an impact on British businesses, particularly those that sell their products online from Great Britain directly to consumers in Northern Ireland—hence my earlier question. As the Minister said, GB businesses will need an economic operator to be established in Northern Ireland for compliance activities if they want to sell goods there. Given the additional obligations on British businesses that want to continue to sell their goods across the United Kingdom, will the Minister assure us that the Government will continue to provide the advice and guidance necessary to ensure that British businesses are prepared and geared up for this?
Secondly, the Government suggest in guidance that the enforcement of the market surveillance regulation in Northern Ireland will be proportionate, risk-based and intelligence led, minimising disruption to businesses. How will that be guaranteed? Have there not been lots of complaints that it is none of those things and that it is an overweening burden that speaks to the whole issue of division down the Irish Sea? The regulations before us suggest that regulatory checks on goods entering Northern Ireland will continue to take place by exception and only where there is a high level of risk. How is that judgment made and by whom? BEIS has said that goods going into Northern Ireland from Great Britain have a low-risk profile and therefore will not be routinely subject to inspection. Given the current tensions over the Northern Ireland protocol and uncertainty about its implementation, will the Minister clarify the extent to which that approach has been agreed with the EU and at what level that agreement has been reached? Is there an agreement that goods arriving into Great Britain will not be routinely subject to regulatory checks?
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Authorities will now carry out market surveillance activity and enforce product safety and compliance through the powers conferred under this SI.”
What training will authorities receive to use these powers effectively, and how will we know or be assured that such training means that the powers are used in a proportionate way?
The Explanatory Memorandum further states:
“The Government is currently undertaking a wider review of the UK product safety system, including approaches to securing compliance and the role of criminal sanctions in product safety regulation, and the scope for greater use of civil sanctions.”
I echo the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. What is the consultation process for that review? When will it be published? When will the outcome of the review be made known to us? Those issues are important and play into the wider debate about the protocol, the need for it, how it operates and works, and its impact on businesses both in Northern Ireland and more widely across the UK.
I am sorry to appear to be nitpicking, but these are important issues and they come at a difficult time in relations in Northern Ireland. We look forward to some clarity from the Minister, because both businesses and consumers certainly require it, and across the UK at large.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short debate. For reasons that I will summarise, it is vital for the product safety regime that this SI comes into force in Northern Ireland on 16 July 2021.
First, the SI will provide continued robust protection for consumers. It will ensure that safe and compliant products can be placed on the market in Northern Ireland as part of a cohesive and modern product safety framework across the whole United Kingdom. The SI builds on the powers set out in the existing product safety regime in a way that regulators and businesses will be familiar with.
To achieve this, the SI provides a uniform set of powers for regulators, designed to fit with the existing products legislation across the United Kingdom. This includes powers in respect of criminal offences that can be used by market surveillance authorities on the occasions where they are required, which we expect to be rare. The Regulators’ Code will continue to apply across the United Kingdom. It provides powers that can be relied on if needed by all market surveillance authorities, irrespective of product. It also protects consumers from potentially unsafe products sold online by setting out a mechanism that market surveillance authorities can use to request co-operation from an online service provider. Without this SI, there would be gaps in the enforcement of product safety within Northern Ireland when the existing market surveillance chapter of the prior regulation is repealed. The powers in RAMS would otherwise fall away, risking disruption and confusion for businesses and enforcement authorities.
The Government have been engaging closely with businesses and regulators on the introduction of these new market surveillance regulations; we have published guidance for both and will continue to provide support to them in the coming months.
In response to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, there are a range of administrative and civil sanctions—for example, compliance, recall and withdrawal notices—available in MSC which can be used by market surveillance authorities. These enforcement tools are backed by criminal offences, which are in line with other legislation in the goods sphere. While civil penalties such as fines are not included, the Government are reviewing the product safety framework for the whole United Kingdom to ensure that it is fit for purpose, protects consumers and supports businesses to innovate and grow.
The call for evidence has concluded, closing on 17 June, and a government response on its findings will be published in due course. In terms of any changes that might be seen in activities on the ground, neither MSC nor our implementation of it will increase checks on goods. In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, market surveillance checks will follow an intelligence-led and risk-based approach.
The noble Lord also asked why there is no enforcement provision or penalty for online services. While services are not included in the protocol, the primary aim of these provisions is not to create an enforcement power to regulate online service providers; instead, it creates a power for the MSA to request co-operation from an online service provider to assist it in mitigating the risks presented by unsafe products, in order to protect consumers in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised concerns about how the implementation of the regulation will impact on British businesses, particularly those that sell online. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, GB businesses will need economic operators, for compliance, to sell within Northern Ireland and the EU single market. My department will continue with a targeted, sector-specific engagement approach up to and beyond the date the regulation comes into force, 16 July, so that they are aware that the legal obligations remain unchanged in terms of the controls and targeted, risk-based approach to goods entering the market.
Consumers in Northern Ireland who are concerned that a product is unsafe or believe it may not comply with UK regulations can contact their district council environmental health service trading standards, which is responsible for enforcement of product safety legislation in Northern Ireland, or they can contact Consumerline. The relevant enforcement body will then decide whether an investigation should take place and what action should be taken regarding instances of compliance. Unsafe products, by presenting a serious risk, are notified to the product safety database. Unsafe product reports are publicly available to consumers.
In response to the noble Lord’s concerns about whether our approach is proportionate, risk-based and intelligence-led, enforcement of this regulation has been agreed with the EU. Market surveillance activity under the MSC regulation is risk-based and targeted. This is set out in legislation. We explained our approach to the EU last year; we have always been open with the EU that we have never envisaged many checks taking place at points of entry.
As I noted in my opening speech, my officials will of course continue to assist business organisations to ensure that MSC does not place a disproportionate burden on trade in Northern Ireland. We will continue to update the guidance. I hope I have dealt with the queries raised by both noble Lords. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.05 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit is one hour.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations we are considering today were laid in draft before this House on 8 June. If approved and made, they will extend the temporary pavement licence provisions for 12 months to 30 September 2022 and will come into effect the day after they are made.
The temporary pavement licence provisions create a faster, cheaper and more streamlined consenting regime for the placement of removeable furniture, including tables and chairs, on pavements outside premises such as cafes, bars, restaurants and pubs. These measures have been popular and very successful in supporting businesses, making it easier for pubs, restaurants and cafes to facilitate al fresco dining with outside seating. It is vital that we continue to support the hospitality sector by extending these provisions for 12 months, as it has been one of the hardest hit as a result of the coronavirus.
The sole purpose of the regulations is to change the four references to the expiry date in the legislation from 30 September 2021 to 30 September 2022. The regulations do not change any other part of the pavement licence provisions, so the process for applying for a licence during the extended period will not change. Subject to the regulations being approved and made, businesses will be able to apply for a licence under the process set out in the pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act for the extended period until 30 September 2022.
The regulations do not automatically extend licences that have been granted under the current provisions, so businesses will need to apply for a new licence if they wish to have one in place during the extended period. Local authorities are encouraged by guidance to take a pragmatic approach in applying the extended provisions, so that it is as convenient as possible for businesses to apply for a licence during the extended period. As the process for applying for a licence under the extended period will remain unchanged, I will briefly remind noble Lords of that process.
All licences are subject to a 10-working-day determination period, including a five-working day public consultation period, excluding public holidays, starting the day after the application is sent electronically to the authority. If the local authority does not determine the application before the end of the determination period, the licence will be deemed to have been granted for a year—or, if sooner, until 30 September 2022—and the business can place the proposed furniture, such as tables and chairs, within the area set out in the application for the purpose or purposes proposed.
Licence application fees will be set locally but are capped at a maximum of £100. Again, these fees are unchanged from what they are for licence applications under the current temporary provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020. All licences will be subject to a national no-obstruction condition and smoke-free seating condition as well as any local conditions set by local authorities.
The grant of a pavement licence only covers the placing of furniture on the highway. A pavement licence does not negate the need to obtain approvals under other regulatory frameworks such as alcohol licensing. The Government have also laid a separate statutory instrument to extend the temporary alcohol licensing amendments.
Once a licence is granted, or deemed to be granted, the applicant will also benefit from deemed planning permission to use the highway land for anything done pursuant to the licence while the licence is valid—for example, using furniture to sell or serve food or drink supplied from, or in connection with relevant use of, premises.
The pavement licence regime in the Business and Planning Act did not replace the regime in Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980; rather, it sat alongside it. This remains the case during the period of validity of the 2020 Act provisions as extended by this statutory instrument. Applicants may apply for a licence under Part VIIA as an alternative if they wish to do so for any reason.
These regulations will enable food and drink hospitality businesses to continue to obtain a licence to place furniture on the highway outside their premises quickly and cheaply. As I previously stated, this extension is considered necessary and vital, as it will provide businesses with much needed certainty to help them to recover economically and will support them in planning for the extended period. To explain just how hard the sector has been hit, evidence from trade organisations and other sources has indicated significant financial losses and wider economic pressures faced by the hospitality industry. The Office for National Statistics reported in July that more than half of businesses in the accommodation and food services industry had experienced a fall in turnover, compared with normal expectations for this time of year—more than any other industry.
I firmly believe these regulations will bring essential economic support out of the pandemic for many food and drink businesses, by enabling extended outdoor capacity for serving food and drink. To support local authorities and businesses with the implementation of the regulations, we will publish an updated version of the pavement licence guidance when the regulations are made. If these regulations are not introduced, there is a real risk that we will undermine the steps that food and drink hospitality businesses have taken to recover from the economic impacts they have suffered as a result of coronavirus.
All of us in government have enjoyed pubs, cafes and restaurants being open again, following coronavirus lockdown restrictions. The temporary pavement licence measures are just some of several measures that the Government have introduced to support hospitality businesses to reopen safely, enabling businesses across the country to serve their local communities. Since introducing a simplified route for pubs, restaurants and cafes to obtain a temporary pavement licence, we have heard of many examples of local businesses being able to increase their outdoor capacity quickly and at low costs. The draft regulations that we are debating today will allow al fresco dining and drinking to remain a reality for these businesses and provide much needed certainty for another year. I commend this instrument to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, my intervention this afternoon will be brief. I was most grateful to the Minister for finding the time yesterday to have a conversation with me about these regulations, and I was able to tell him that I have tabled a regret Motion relating to them, which will be debated in the Chamber presumably some time next week—I gather that it may be Wednesday. The rules relating to hybrid procedures in Grand Committee do not allow for regret Motions to be debated here.
I shall not take up the Committee’s time today by going through the arguments for my regret Motion. The wording of it is self-explanatory; it regrets that “these regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences, which have been implemented over the last year in a diverse range of local authorities and which have received strong public support”. Your Lordships may recall that the House debated these regulations during the passage of the Business and Planning Bill almost a year ago. A cross-party amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and me received strong support across the Chamber. Our amendment was supported by the Local Government Association and a number of major local authorities. The LGA said that it
“sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.
Despite the Government’s stated intention to make smoking obsolete in England and for us to be smoke free by 2030, Ministers did not accept our amendment a year ago. Instead, they inserted a requirement in legislation that
“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted”.
A number of councils went further and issued pavement licences that require completely smoke-free areas. I shall say more about these local councils and the views of the public as measured in a huge opinion survey carried out by YouGov when we have the debate in the Chamber.
I shall also be able to share with your Lordships some information from Canada, where smoke-free patio areas have been required by a number of provinces. There is good evidence that they are popular and easy to enforce and that they improve the health of hospitality workers—and there are no signs of an adverse impact on business. I hope that the House will take the view that it is a matter of regret that we did not go down that same route when we passed the 2020 Act, and that these regulations were not revised in that light.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the remarks just now by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. We have, as he said, been here before when, last summer, the Government launched the “Eat out to help out” campaign. At that time, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, my noble friend Lady Northover moved, with all-party support, to tie the extension of eating on the pavement to non-smoking areas. This was rejected by the Government because they did not wish to hinder the development of the initiative at short notice. This year, the same excuse will not be an acceptable reason for inaction, because a year has elapsed, but the Government prefer to listen not to local authorities or the Local Government Association, which has to make the permits work, in very many areas, including my own, in Oxfordshire, but instead to the voices of big business, brewers and the tobacco industry. They do not listen, necessarily, to the small shopkeepers and restauranteurs owners but to the very big interests behind them.
Does the Minister recognise that, during the pandemic, many smokers have quit, but it is very easy for such people to resume smoking? Then there is the effect of passive smoking on those around, on the staff and on children. Can we afford to inflict a rise in the number of smokers on our population already cursed by Covid? The proposed regulations, with their ambivalent attitude to smoking, will make the difficulties that local authorities have with enforcement worse, and will be mightily unpopular with the majority of actual users.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to my noble friend the Minister, who may remember our debate on pavement licences a year ago, that I have every sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. As he said, I supported the amendment then moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, saying that pavement licences should be given only if smoking were prohibited, and I will not repeat the arguments I made then. That amendment was withdrawn, but on Report the Government tabled their own concessionary amendment requiring proper provision for non-smokers and, although it was not what the movers wanted—nor, indeed, what the majority of the speakers in the debate had asked for—the concession was accepted. My noble friend then said that joint guidance would be issued by his department and DHSC.
That joint guidance was non-contentious. I want to focus this afternoon on paragraph 11.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to updated guidance from the department to help local authorities implement the provisions of this order. I do this because, on 8 August last year, after the guidance I referred to was published, the Secretary of State emailed Manchester City Council, stating that its proposal to set a local smoke- free condition on the issue of pavement licences was
“against the spirit of the emergency legislation passed by Parliament”.
It was not: the legislation expressly said that local authorities could set a local condition such as Manchester proposed. Indeed, in Committee on the Bill my noble friend said:
“Therefore, local authorities can exercise their condition-making powers to impose no-smoking conditions”.—[Official Report, 13/7/20; col. 1482.]
Worse, the letter went on to assert that if smoking were banned outside pubs and cafes:
“It could lead to significant closures across the country.”
In spite of repeated challenges, not one shred of evidence was ever produced by the department to substantiate that assertion, frequently made by the smoking pressure group FOREST. Such evidence as we have from the introduction of the smoking ban in 2007 showed that more people said that they went to the pub more often than said that they went less often. The simple assurance which I seek from the Minister, whom I acquit from being in any way complicit in this misinformation, is that if further guidance is given to accompany this order, it does not contain any more inaccurate or misleading statements such as those that I have referred to.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, last year in the debate on this in this House, I said that I was very much in favour of this measure, and I am in favour again of a year’s extension, not only for the businesses themselves but because extending bars and restaurants on to the street, even if temporarily, generally represents an enhancement of our public space by increasing the sharing of public space. In a sense, it is good for the vitality of our high streets.
However, although the measure clearly is good for the businesses concerned, particularly during the pandemic, as is the intention of the regulations, the question must be: how have communities reacted as a whole, including non-smokers and the disabled? Have the Government made a formal overall assessment of the effect of this measure? Will they do so? The local authorities are making these decisions, but these are two separate things.
I am in favour of the shared space principle which hovers in the background of this. It is not directly a debate on shared space but I miss the wisdom of Hans Monderman, who died too young at the age of 62, 13 years ago. Others have carried his work forward, but it would be interesting to know how he would have dealt with today’s concerns of the blind and partially sighted in this and other instances. His guiding principle was negotiation between users in the space itself, which of course makes the solution to the organisation of space particularly challenging when some users cannot rely on visual clues. A shared space is not properly a shared space unless it can be shared by all. The space that a blind person has been used to will get altered at certain times if part of a pavement is used by, for example, a bar or restaurant. It will then be important for that space used to be geographically predictable on a day-to-day basis, the territory precisely marked out, to a few inches at the most. It is not just about there being enough space for all pedestrians, including the disabled, to negotiate or navigate without having to walk into the road.
I made a suggestion to the Minister last year, to which he was receptive, that areas could be marked in their corners by fairly sturdy objects such as square plant boxes, and I am glad to see that this has been included in the guidance. The predictability of these spaces on a day-to-day basis will be respectful to use of the whole space for all pedestrians. Councils have gone further, pedestrianising some streets, at least on a temporary basis, to allow greater pavement space for businesses, but here, too, there must be clearly understood and reproducible routes for pedestrians. This might mean a route between one obstacle of one business and an obstacle of another when there is no obvious edge of a footway. Do the Government intend to update the guidance? I am not sure that some of these points are emphasised enough in the current guidance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome the regulations and this opportunity to debate them. I declare my interests as set out in the register, as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board, and having chaired the House’s ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and am very grateful to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association briefing that he shared with me today. I absolutely share the concern expressed by my noble friend the Minister about the hit that the hospitality industry has taken, which is very well set out in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, with £8.2 billion of trade having been wiped out, the decrease in turnover which he referred to, and the reported 2,000 pubs estimated to have closed down forever.
However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give me—and, more importantly, the vulnerable users of pavements—an assurance this afternoon as we extend the licensing provisions in the regulations before us today. Specifically, if we are allowing only 10 days before a licence application, which I accept is a new application this time, will be agreed, what consultation will there be for particularly vulnerable pavement users in this regard? Will he put my mind at rest that it is not an issue of licence by default? There is a concern, which I hope he will address this afternoon, that there is no time for consultation in a 10-day period. Will he confirm that the original timeframe of 28 days will be reverted to when the regulations cease to have effect?
Can the Minister give me an assurance that local authorities will have regard to the Equality Act provisions and similar provisions in the issuing of licences under the regulations? I am concerned that there is no right of appeal, and I would like to understand whether, in the rush to grant the licence—and I do not know whether he has any evidence of this under the present licence system—if it was felt that street furniture was put in an inappropriate or hazardous place, that could be reviewed and the local authorities have the power to go and inspect that. I am asking for balance in the way in which the licences are issued between the rights of the pub or business to ply its trade, which we are all in support of, and the rights of more vulnerable users—visually impaired and others—to go about enjoying the pavements in the normal way.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the café society that Covid has generated is to be welcomed. It brings colour and life to our streets, and will continue to do so, providing useful spaces for those who are not ready to ditch all Covid precautions come 19 July and would prefer to do their wining and dining outside and away from terribly crowded areas in future. Therefore, I welcome the idea of extending the speeded-up process for securing a licence that is incumbent in these regulations. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on his regrets at the failure to insist that such eating and drinking areas be made smoke free. Why that should be the case is completely beyond me, since we all know that passive smoking causes great dangers. If we want these areas to be family friendly—or, indeed, friendly at all—having them filled with smoke is simply not sensible, and the Government have the power to stop it.
We know the difficulties that hospitality businesses have faced during the pandemic, and anything that can be done to enable them to do more business and build back their finances is to be welcomed, but that should not entail bringing in unnecessary smoking. However, there are specifics related to the licences which I wonder whether the Minister would look at. Several aspects of pavement licences concern me. First, while we are allowing smoking, there continues to be a ban on fire pits and gas heaters, which seems illogical to say the least. One can wander along the streets in skiing resorts, for instance, where fire pits are perfectly common, and they do not seem to cause any great trouble. I also wonder whether it is right that the Metropolitan Police should continue to insist that management teams in restaurants and pubs with outside seating undergo counterterrorism training. Is that really necessary? The risks seem very slender.
Finally, can the Minister reassure me that local authorities are not using pavement licences, which are reasonably priced at £100, as a means of generating other income by unreasonably charging for excess refuse, street cleaning and other things that they judge to be a nuisance? There have been suggestions of restaurants and pubs being charged excessively for that sort of thing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to flag three areas where the Government should look further at these regulations than merely extending them to 2022.
The first is the timeframe placed on local authorities to process, publicise and determine licences: a mere 10 working days. This has been incredibly onerous on council resources and should be extended to between 15 and 25 working days. With businesses shortly to reopen without restrictions, it is only fair to offer more time to councils and residents.
The second aspect is the cost of a licence, which has been set at a maximum of £100. I gather that most councils have charged this in full. For uncontested licences, it may cover their administrative costs, but it does not if an application is contested and senior officers and licensing teams need to be involved. Kensington and Chelsea Council told me that it would usually charge £512 for a table and chairs licence under the previous regime, which was calculated based on cost recovery. While the process has been streamlined under these regulations, it has not cut councils’ costs by 80%. Effectively, councils are struggling with this loss of income. In some cases, there is a double loss of income where a licence is granted for tables and chairs in parking bays, as there is an additional loss of parking revenue. If this regime is to be extended until September 2022, councils would welcome the discretion to set higher application fees where appropriate. In addition, local authorities would often recover their monitoring costs to ensure compliance with licences, often around £300 a year per premises. The regulations make no provision for this, yet monitoring is still needed.
My third comment may be too radical for some, but it has been suggested to me that the Government might be bolder and look at a British Summer Time pavement licensing scheme to operate annually but not in the winter, or trial these regulations on a more permanent basis in the central activities zone boroughs of, say, Westminster, Camden and Kensington and Chelsea.
The new regulations are much less cumbersome than the three regimes they replace, but the work being done by Westminster City Council to make pavement licensing cost-neutral needs to be taken on board, and a longer timeframe for processing, consulting and determining pavement licences is key to helping residents feel involved.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this is a good SI which will begin to improve the hospitality sector, which has suffered so much due to Covid. It is now announced that a large proportion of the UK population has received both vaccines. Therefore, local authorities must quickly respond to the applications they receive. These businesses have suffered greatly due to the lockdowns and many have been permanently closed. The Government’s success in vaccinating over 60% of the population must be acknowledged. Therefore, pavement applications must be approved speedily to open up the hospitality industry and enable it to flourish.
Can the Minister give an estimate of how many bars and pubs have been closed down permanently, and how many jobs have been lost?
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. It is right to extend the pavement licensing system for a further year. We have learned a lot from it in the past year, which can help to inform future policy. The public have become used to the system and in the main appreciate it.
In our debate on this topic a year ago, of which mention has been made, I recall speaking about access issues and related matters, some of which seem to have been resolved and others not so effectively.
I recall also saying that sometimes I preferred conditions to be imposed by Governments rather than guidance when change is needed. One such matter may prove to be that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and a number of other speakers, whose concerns I want to support. Smoke-free pavements are in the public interest, and I believe that the vast majority of the public do not want to sit on a seat in an extended restaurant or pub while suffering the disbenefits of second-hand smoke. I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, compelling and I hope we will hear more about them next week.
We have had a year’s experience of the regulation. We know that businesses have been helped and that people have had the benefit of more outdoor seating. It has added to a sense of community and neighbourliness in our towns and cities. There has been one other benefit that I have become aware of: it has reduced pollution, because extending pavement seating has encouraged some councils to move traffic further away through traffic calming measures. I welcome that.
A year ago, I recall the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminding us of the existing powers of councils on access, smoking and a range of other issues. Indeed, it is always better for councils to take responsibility locally rather than to expect the Government to decide everything for them. Sometimes, however, the Government have to take action and responsibility, and preventing second-hand smoke seems to be one of those occasions.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. His department has a year’s experience now. I hope that it is not planning to roll over these regulations for a third time in September 2022. Rather, we should build on current knowledge with a reformed but permanent pavement licensing system that builds on the achievements of the past year and addresses the problems that have arisen. There are permanent solutions that can be found but to achieve them means bringing together all the relevant parties to devise an agreed way forward on the pavement licensing system. That includes a solution to all the problems that have been identified by speakers today.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have listened carefully to the debate so far, and very interesting points have been raised. Personally, I am very supportive of the principle of pavement licences. One of the first jobs I had as a local councillor was to introduce cafe culture into Leeds way back in the 1990s, which was not a concept that was greeted with great enthusiasm at the time. We have moved on now to dedicating whole streets and removing traffic from them so that cafés can spill out, which has proved to be incredibly successful. Obviously, the changes due to Covid have proved an enormous bonus to businesses that have been struggling.
However, I want to stress from a local authority’s perspective just how complex this can be. It involves consultation with the planning department, licensing, highways, community safety, and we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who spoke eloquently about the shared space issues and the need to consult carefully with disability groups. This can lead to incredibly complex processes. I will come back to this, but we have to wonder whether we have given local authorities the required resource to deal with processing applications and, most importantly, assessing and monitoring their impact.
We have learned that, when introduced last year, this was going to be a temporary streamlining of the pavement licence application process and that it would be in place for only as long as social distancing was necessary. However, the Government are today legislating for the extension of the provisions until September 2022, despite legal requirements on social distancing coming to an end this month. I begin by asking the Minister to clarify whether this represents a change in policy by the Government, and is he certain that there will be no further extension beyond September 2022?
On a similar point, the Minister will be aware that under the Business and Planning Act, an extension is legally permissible only if it is for the purpose of mitigating an effect of the coronavirus. Can he detail how this extension meets that requirement? I understand that the temporary nature of the measure was due to concerns raised by local authorities, as well as by community and campaign groups. There was concern about the process leading to more anti-social behaviour and creating noise and nuisance for local residents, as well as the issues we raised about impaired mobility. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have assessed whether the increase in pavement licences has led to those issues, and will he outline exactly what consultation has taken place with those groups on extending the provision?
The reduced funding stream is significant. I must inform your Lordships that the fee cap of £100 is leading several local authorities into some difficulties. Before this cap, some licensees were paying up to £1,000 without complaint, because they recognised the significance of what they were being allowed to do and the resource required to make it successful for them. Given that it is now close to a year since pavement licence streamlining came into effect, it would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether there have been any issues with the practical application of the new streamlined process. Can he confirm how many pavement licences have been granted under the new process and how that compares to the previous year? Most importantly, under the provision, how many businesses will need to reapply, as well as those applying for the first time? Have local authorities reported any issues with the statutory framework for the pavement licence process? Do the Government collect information on the conditions which local authorities are imposing? For example, the short turnaround time presents issues for the proper due diligence that needs to be undertaken in assessing applications.
I was pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Faulkner that he intends to table a regret Motion in relation to the fact that this instrument will not guarantee 100% smoke-free pavement licences. We on these Benches have a proud tradition of acting to reduce smoking and the harms it causes both smokers and those around them. Last year, my noble friend secured an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill which guaranteed protection to non-smokers by requiring all licensed premises to set aside a non-smoking area. Clearly, there is more discussion to be had on this area, and I look forward to the debate that will be generated in the week ahead.
When the Government introduced the new pavement licence process last year, they had the support of these Benches, but with concerns raised over how it would be implemented. Given that the process is being extended by another year, I hope the Minister can allay those concerns and confirm that the Government will work hand in hand with local authorities and all the relevant groups to monitor its further application.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have given us a very interesting debate on these draft regulations. I was particularly impressed by the distinguished former leader of the city of Leeds trying to introduce café culture in the 1990s, well ahead of its time. The way we consume alcohol in this country, standing at a bar or outside, is very different to the café culture we see on the continent of Europe. It is good that we have seen an increase in the latter approach to our leisure activities as a result of the pandemic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to.
We have been discussing an essential extension of the temporary pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for 12 months to 30 September 2022. As previously outlined, the regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery and are vital to provide certainty for businesses in planning for al fresco dining for the next year. I am grateful to noble Lords for raising a number of important points on how this will operate and will try to respond to as many as I can.
First, I want to make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, that there has been no change in policy. We have not made a decision on the future of the temporary provisions; it would be premature to make any commitments on potential changes to the policy in future. However, I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to engage with stakeholders. We are committed to ensuring that the needs of all highway users are taken into account.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about smoking and the fact that there is not effectively a ban on it. The temporary pavement licence legislation includes a “smoke-free” seating condition—that concession was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Young—and there must be reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. This condition seeks to ensure customers have greater choice, so that smokers and non-smokers are able to sit outside.
I appreciate the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I recognise that things would be different were there to be a change on a permanent basis as opposed to this simple extension of the current provisions.
In response to my noble friend Lord Young, on his comment about the letter from the Secretary of State to Manchester City Council, it is of course right—as mentioned in the debate—that local authorities have condition-setting powers. I know as a councillor of 16 years that they have and always have had such local discretion. They can set those conditions where appropriate, and some local authorities have used this power, including in this instance Manchester City Council. I reassure my noble friend that all correspondence from the department on this matter will remain in line with what has been agreed in the legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering rightly raised accessibility and ensuring that pavements remain accessible to everyone. It is important that, while supporting the hospitality industry, we achieve that objective. The pavement licence guidance makes it clear that in most circumstances 1.5 metres of clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway. In response to the noble Earl, I point out that we have worked with the RNIB and Guide Dogs UK to update the pavement licence guidance, which will be published alongside the extension regulations. This update will include a section to emphasise to local authorities that, as Covid restrictions are eased, extra care should be taken to ensure that national and local requirements around accessibility are still being met.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, we have undertaken work with stakeholders to understand the impact of an extension across a range of authorities and different groups, such as the RNIB and Guide Dogs UK, taking into account the impact the provisions have had over the past year.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Blake, all mentioned local authority resourcing. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I was interested to hear about the granting of a licence and then using it as a way essentially to charge for other council services unnecessarily. In my experience, that would not normally be done by local authorities. Effectively, most of their moneys are raised either through tax or direct grant, and they would not normally seek to generate income. However, I would be very happy to understand the specific instances that she referred to. It would be concerning if it happens, but it seems very much out of character.
On local authority resources, we are aware that these provisions have a significant impact: not equally, but on some local authorities. If we compare parts of suburban London to the City of Westminster, we are talking about a completely different quantity of licences that will be granted. It is therefore absolutely right that we undertake a full new burdens assessment, and we will fund any new burdens as a consequence of the temporary pavement licence measures in line with the new burdens doctrine.
In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh on what happens to the consultation timeframe when the regulations cease, I can reassure her that we will revert to a minimum of 28 days’ consultation as set out in Part VIIA of the Highways Act from the 10 days in the temporary regulations.
I was interested to hear about the ban on firepits and gas heaters raised by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft—I call her my noble friend because that is what I consider her to be. I understand those concerns, but this is not a matter for these regulations. I think it is something that we see on the continent of Europe, and with our climate, would be particularly helpful.
In conclusion, we are extending the temporary pavement licence regulations because we believe it is necessary to support food and drink hospitality businesses by expanding their outdoor capacity, so continuing to support their economic recovery out of the pandemic. This is particularly important when we consider just how badly affected by the pandemic this sector has been—there is no doubt about that.
These temporary pavement licence measures have already been very successful in supporting the hospitality sector so far, as a number of noble Lords have commented. Extending the provisions will enable this success to continue and will provide much-needed certainty in the sector’s planning for the coming year. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the room to respect social distancing. Should the capacity of the Committee Room be exceeded or other safety requirements be breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) Order 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, since the financial crisis, the Government have implemented significant reforms to address the problems of the past and make the financial sector safer and more stable. A key element of these reforms was establishing the Financial Policy Committee, which is responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the financial system as a whole. The FPC addresses macro-prudential risks through its powers to issue recommendations and, importantly, directions to the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Successive Governments have legislated to provide the FPC with the powers of direction that it needs to address risks to financial stability. Through these existing powers, the FPC can ensure that firms are not allowed to take on excessive levels of leverage, effectively tackle systemic risks in the UK housing market, and vary firms’ capital requirements against exposures to specific sectors over time. This instrument amends the existing powers of direction granted to the FPC by Parliament to ensure that they continue to operate effectively given changes that have been made to the wider prudential regime since they were first introduced.
The Financial Services Act 2021 represents a major milestone in shaping a regulatory framework for UK financial services outside the EU. It enhances the competitiveness of the sector and ensures that it continues to deliver for UK consumers and businesses. The Act extended the powers for the PRA to make rules which apply to holding companies for the purposes of prudential regulation. Accordingly, the Act granted the FPC the ability to make directions or recommendations that relate to holding companies, ensuring a coherent regime under which holding companies become responsible for meeting prudential requirements. Consistent with these changes, this instrument amends the FPC’s existing powers of direction, where necessary, so that they can also be applied in relation to holding companies.
In addition, the Government have stated their intention to move the detail of the leverage ratio framework exclusively into rules made by the PRA using powers introduced by the Financial Services Act 2021. The leverage ratio is intended to be a broadly risk-insensitive measure of a bank or investment firm’s level of leverage. This instrument therefore amends the FPC’s powers of direction over the leverage ratio so that the method for measuring a bank’s exposures when calculating the leverage ratio is defined by reference to rules made by the PRA. This method will be subject to any specifications made by the FPC when it issues a direction in relation to leverage. For example, the FPC currently recommends that the PRA excludes central bank reserves from banks’ exposures for leverage purposes to ensure that macroprudential policy does not impede the smooth transition of monetary policy. Under this instrument, the FPC would instead be able to direct the PRA to make such an exclusion.
This House may wish to be aware that the FPC and the PRA recently published a consultation on proposed changes to the UK leverage framework. This followed the FPC’s comprehensive review of the framework in light of revised international standards, and its ongoing commitment to review its policy approach. The UK remains committed to the implementation of the Basel 3 standards, of which the leverage ratio is a key part, alongside other major jurisdictions.
It is important to emphasise that the FPC’s proposed leverage ratio framework delivers a level of resilience at least as great as that required by international standards, providing a vital backstop to secure the resilience of the banking system. The framework will continue to require that the vast majority of the UK leverage ratio be met with the highest quality of capital. However, I should make it clear that the changes introduced by this instrument are to ensure that the FPC can continue to make effective use of the existing powers of direction over the leverage ratio that have already been granted to it by Parliament. It is for the FPC, which is independent of government, to decide which of its levers, including its powers of recommendation and direction, would be most effective and appropriate to implement measures such as the proposed changes to the leverage ratio framework.
The Treasury has worked closely with the Bank of England to prepare this instrument. In accordance with our statutory obligations, officials have consulted the FPC, which agreed with the approach being taken. We have engaged with the financial services industry on the contents of the instrument.
This instrument is necessary to ensure that the FPC’s existing macroprudential tools continue to operate effectively given changes that have been made to the wider prudential regime since they were first introduced. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this regulation, which is consequential on the changes to powers laid out in the recent Financial Services Act—which we debated for many days earlier this year. As the Minister said, the matters covered today include the leverage ratio and the application of measures to holding companies.
I have no problem with the regulation but I want to say a few things about the policies which it will be used to put in place. As the Minister said, there are several significant FPC and PRA consultations concerning application of international Basel standards and the leverage ratio, which are made in consultation with HMT. I would like to spend my time on those underlying issues that will be given life through the powers in this instrument.
The leverage ratio presently is utilised essentially as a backstop in case the models used by banks to calculate their risk-weighted capital requirements become too light in their risk assessments. Currently, it is set at 3.5%, and it is the capital buffers that will tend to restrict the banks’ activities, essentially through cost, with the leverage ratio therefore seen as a sort of lower ultimate solvency test. Nevertheless, it effectively functions in a similar way to capital buffers rather than as a different economic tool.
I make that point because I thought that, with the Financial Policy Committee having a bigger role in relation to leverage, there might be an attempt to look at the outcome of the Macmillan committee report produced after the 1929 financial crisis, where it was suggested that, instead of controlling markets simply by interest rates and price, there should be a second leverage control that addressed total volume. So my question to the Minister is on what thought is being given to whether there needs to be a control on volume and money creation other than through price.
Returning to what is actually happening in conjunction with this instrument, and in line with new Basel standards, the leverage ratio framework is being applied to a wider scope of firms, at times to the consolidated or sub-consolidated level, and will extend to internationally active holding companies and firms with non-UK assets over £10 billion, which will cover larger, non-ring-fenced banks and broker dealers such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley. I agree that these are all good moves for stability of the banking system in the UK.
Alongside that there is to be tweaking of, and some disapplication of, Basel standards. Schedule 3 of the Financial Services Act 2021, repeated again in this instrument, states that the PRA must have regard to, among other things:
“relevant standards recommended by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision from time to time … the likely effect of the rules on the relative standing of the United Kingdom as a place for internationally active credit institutions and investment firms to be based or to carry on activities … the likely effect of the rules on the ability of CRR firms to continue to provide finance to businesses and consumers in the United Kingdom on a sustainable basis in the medium and long term … the target in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008”,
which is net zero,
“and … any other matter specified by the Treasury”.
As ever, it is “have regard”, so it promises nothing. In the proposed changes around leverage, there are areas where the second point, about the standing of the UK—effectively competitiveness—has prevailed over the first, and the Basel rules are not taken in full. The UK will not be Basel-compliant over its leverage buffer for globally systemically important banks, setting a lower-than-Basel level, and will also not be implementing the disciplinary measures, such as restriction of dividends on breach of a leverage ratio requirement. It is not hard to see the attractiveness of those measures to banks, but is not there a risk that it is saying, “We don’t care that you are getting close to dodgy solvency levels, just go ahead and pay dividends”? Which other jurisdictions are doing this, or is the UK leading the charge?
There are other departures, too, but the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in the Commons on Monday that the FPC will argue that overall, on an outcomes basis, the UK is equivalent because a stronger measure of what qualifies as capital will be applied. That is a substantial attitudinal departure from international standards. I understand where it is coming from, but it is the UK back to its old tricks of saying it complies when in fact it picks and chooses and jiggles around? It can be the same on an outcomes basis to get to a destination going the wrong way along a one-way street, but it is not advisable and involves breaches of standards. Is not that what the UK is doing—saying that we were well under the speed limit on this road, so now we can take an illegal short-cut down the one-way street?
There is no great glory from being above Basel on capital standards. Basel rules are meant to be a minimum and already have aspects of lowest common agreement, which is in fact how some lower-grade capital gets in there. In my book, the lower standards look like breaches rather than outcomes compliance, and I worry that the UK has possibly started the undermining of Basel and a race to the bottom.
Can the Minister provide, if not now then by letter, calculations that show how the higher quality of capital compensates for lower buffers—for example through loss absorbency in the event of resolution? What was the basis, other than saying, “Come and headquarter here”, for removing the restrictions on dividends for a breach of the leverage ratio? I understand the importance of keeping investors, but what action will the regulator take for fast restoration of capital if dividends are still flowing out? Furthermore, are the differences from Basel in fact things that the UK argued for and lost—perhaps, if you like, giving a warning—or are they new approaches? Will it undermine the future effectiveness of the UK in negotiations if we have the reputation for just doing things our own way anyhow? Will not that remove the incentive for others to see things the same way as the UK?
The regulation will pass, as it is part of the new structure but, despite references in the documents to the “new accountability structure”, it is regrettable that these first, important decisions that I have commented on are happening without more prior reference to Parliament. As we said during the debates on the Financial Services Bill, everything is being front-run and front-loaded. The Government fixed their influence and have, unhappily, left Parliament behind.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is one of the first statutory instruments arising from the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021. As well as looking at the changes introduced by this instrument, this debate provides an opportunity to briefly discuss some of the wider issues arising from the new legislation.
This order provides an update to the powers of the Financial Policy Committee, so that it can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority on matters relating to certain holding companies. We welcome this extension of existing macroprudential measures and the various consequential changes in the instrument, which ensure consistency in terminology, application and so on. We also understand the Treasury’s desire, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, to bring this instrument into force as quickly as possible and minimise any gaps that may exist in the FPC’s current powers.
As the Minister outlined in his introduction, this instrument also makes changes to the total exposure measure, or the overall leverage ratio, the framework of which is being transferred from the retained Capital Requirements Regulation to PRA rules. This was discussed when the SI was debated in the Commons earlier this week.
The comments of the Economic Secretary, John Glen, were extremely helpful in outlining the process to date, as well as ongoing and next steps. It was particularly useful to have confirmation that excluding Bank of England balances will make no material difference to the leverage ratio—that is, the amount of capital that a bank is expected to hold in relation to its overall loan book. One area where the Economic Secretary’s answer was slightly less clear was on whether he foresees the UK changing capital requirements now that we are outside the EU. The answer provided, that the Government’s objective is to
“align to the highest global standards”,—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/7/21; col. 7.]
did not directly address the question from Pat McFadden, the shadow Economic Secretary. Can the Minister shed some light on this today?
At the beginning of my speech, I forewarned the Minister that I would make some general points. I will turn to these now. The changes in this instrument are clearly the first of many. Implementation of Basel 3.1, coupled with the Government’s desire to transfer other measures from retained EU law to domestic prudential rules, will mean a steady stream of regulatory changes in the coming months.
The Treasury will no doubt have a document containing the target dates and absolute deadlines for enacting each of these changes, as well as an indication of which parliamentary procedure—if any—they will be subject to. Can the Minister commit to sharing this work plan, to ensure that colleagues who wish to do so can engage at an early stage?
Following on from that question, now also seems an appropriate time to return to one of the big debates from the passage of the Financial Services Bill. The regulators are, separately or jointly, consulting in a range of areas ahead of exercising their expanded rule-making powers. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority launched its consultation on a new consumer duty in May, fulfilling the first requirement of Section 29 of the 2021 Act. Although the Minister was not intimately involved in that Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, he will be aware of undertakings from the FCA and the PRA that they would engage with Parliament as part of their day-to-day work. Although the FCA approached me, is the Minister satisfied that consultation exercises and draft rules that have emerged since the passing of the Act have indeed been brought to the attention of relevant parliamentary committees?
Finally, although it may not be something he can provide in this debate, can the Minister give an update on the future regulatory framework review, which is considering issues such as accountability and scrutiny?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their thoughtful contributions. It is the Government’s view that this instrument is necessary to ensure that the FPC’s existing macroprudential tools continue to operate effectively, given changes that have been made to the wider prudential regime since they were first introduced. On the question from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the leverage ratio, it is for the FPC, which is independent of government, to decide which of its levers, including the powers of recommendation and direction, would be most effective and appropriate to implement measures such as the leverage ratio. It is important to point out that the ratio itself increased from 3% to 3.25% in 2016 and banks are today reporting core capital ratios almost three times higher than before the 2008 global financial crisis.
To expand on the comments of the Economic Secretary, since 2016 the Financial Policy Committee has used its powers of recommendation to implement a leverage ratio, which excludes central bank reserves, and the FPC’s current consultation proposes to maintain that policy. The changes in this SI will instead allow it to direct the PRA to implement such changes to the framework, appropriately reflecting that the PRA will become responsible for defining the total exposure measure on an ongoing basis. On the noble Lord’s question about how the Government foresee capital requirements changing now that we are outside the EU, the UK remains committed to maintaining the highest international standards, including the Basel standards. This has not changed now that we have left the EU. However, I should note that the capital requirements in relation to the implementation of Basel 3 and 3.1 standards and the prudential regime for investment firms are set by the regulators and therefore independent of government.
The Government believe that delegating responsibilities to expert and independent regulators remains appropriate. The regulators have the expertise to set rules in the complex and technical area of financial regulation. They do so in an agile way which corresponds to the changing context. The PRA will decide exactly how these Basel 3 standards will be implemented, subject to any recommendations or directions made by the FPC based on the specificities of the UK market, in line with statutory objectives and accountability frame- works set out in the recently passed Financial Services Act. The PRA’s recent consultation on Basel 3 implementation set out several areas where it proposed to tailor the implementation of the outstanding Basel 3 standards to better reflect the UK context.
The noble Lord requested a timeline for ongoing prudential regulation. Last year, the Treasury and regulators published their intention to implement the outstanding Basel 3 reforms and the investment firms prudential regime for 1 January 2022. To enable this, Her Majesty’s Treasury intends, in the near term, to lay an affirmative SI which revokes the relevant aspects of the onshore to capital requirements regulation, therefore allowing the PRA to make rules that fill the space of those revocations and, in so doing, implement the outstanding Basel 3 standards. The Treasury will also, later in the year, lay an affirmative SI which makes consequential amendments needed as a result of the aforementioned revocations.
I want to highlight the Regulatory Initiatives Grid, the third edition of which was published in May of this year and includes the proposed timeline for other prudential reforms, such as the implementation of Basel 3.1. The grid adds to the extensive co-ordination mechanisms already in place between HMT and regulators, giving firms a clear picture of upcoming regulatory initiatives, including consultations, so they are better placed to plan for them. In relation to consultation exercises and draft rules to emerge since the passing of the Financial Services Act 2021, I can confirm that the PRA sent its consultation and its draft rules on Basel 3 implementation, shortly after their publication, to the Treasury Select Committee, the Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Lords EU Services Sub-Committee. The PRA intends to follow a similar process when it publishes its subsequent policy statement and near-final rules.
The FCA has also engaged with parliamentary colleagues on its two consultations and policy statement on the investment firms prudential regime. Indeed, the first IFPR consultation was discussed by Parliament during the passage of the Financial Services Act and the FCA has notified the Treasury Select Committee of all the IFPR publications to date. I am confident the FCA will follow a similar process for future consultations, policy statements and final rules. As set out in their letters to parliamentarians during the passage of the Financial Services Act, both regulators are happy to hear views and discuss ongoing work in more detail with MPs, Peers and parliamentary committees wherever this is helpful.
Finally, the noble Lord also asked for an update on the ongoing future regulatory framework review. The FRF review aims to build on the strengths of the UK’s existing framework as set out in FSMA to ensure that it is fit for the future. The review considers whether changes are required to the regulator’s statutory objectives and principles, how we ensure that accountability and scrutiny arrangements with the Treasury, Parliament and stakeholders are appropriate, given the regulator’s new responsibilities, and how we return responsibility for designing and implementing the specific requirements that apply to firms in certain areas of retained EU law to the regulators within a framework set by government and Parliament. An initial consultation exploring these key issues and a proposed approach was published in October 2020 and closed in February 2021. The Government are considering the 120 responses received ahead of a second consultation in the autumn.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about the plans for the UK framework to take a different approach to Basel, the design of the leverage ratio framework is a matter for the FPC and the PRA, which are independent of government. The UK’s proposed leverage ratio delivers a level of resilience at least as great as that required by international standards. Interested parties are able to respond to the ongoing consultation that I referred to, which is being carried out by the FPC.
I hope that the Committee has found today sitting informative and that it will join me in supporting this order, which I commend to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con) [V]
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The regulations amend Regulation 2019/631 and Regulation 114/2013, both as amended by prior EU-exit SIs. Regulation 2019/631 sets carbon dioxide emission standards for new cars and vans in Great Britain, while Regulation 114/2013 establishes the rules for applying for a derogated target.
An EU-exit SI amended the EU regulations and established car and van carbon dioxide emission standards in Great Britain only, as the regulations were originally listed in Annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol, meaning that Northern Ireland would continue to be captured by the EU regime. The current fleet average carbon dioxide emission target for cars is 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, and for vans it is set at 147 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
Manufacturers are set individual targets based on the mass of their fleet compared to the average mass of the entire Great British fleet. The heavier a manufacturer’s vehicle, the higher their target, and vice versa. All targets average out to either of the headline targets as aforementioned. The target for both cars and vans will tighten further in 2025 by 15%, and in 2030 by 31% for vans and 37.5% for cars, when compared with the 2021 baseline. Fines are levied for non-compliance with these targets.
The regulations allow for flexibilities to be granted to help manufacturers in certain circumstances to reach their target. One of these flexibilities is derogations. Smaller manufacturers can apply for a derogated target which is more in line with their technical and economic capability. Pooling is another flexibility. This is where manufacturers can join together for the purposes of the regulation and will be given one target. Manufacturers can also receive credits for using carbon-dioxide-reducing technologies in their vehicles that are not taken into account during the carbon dioxide test procedure, such as LED bulbs. More credits can be earned, up to a certain limit, when a manufacturer puts more zero and low-emission vehicles on the market. These are called super-credits and are available across 2021 and 2022.
Regulation 114/2013, as amended by two previous EU exit SIs, is a tertiary piece of legislation which further sets out the rules and procedures for manufacturers when applying for a derogation. The withdrawal Act retained EU Regulations 2019/631 and 114/2013 in their entirety on exit day in UK law. These were amended by a prior EU exit SI, 2020/1418, and set obligations in GB only, due to the Northern Ireland protocol. The draft instrument under consideration today reflects changes made to the Northern Ireland protocol by the Joint Committee. On 18 December, the EU regulations were removed from Annexe 2 of the protocol, leaving Northern Ireland without any car and van carbon dioxide regulation. This instrument will therefore extend the domestic regulations to Northern Ireland from 1 September, in effect creating a UK-wide regime.
The amendments throughout the regulations primarily replace “GB” with “UK”. However, a provision was added stating that new car and van registrations in Northern Ireland prior to 1 September were out of scope of the regulations, including all target calculations. This SI is essential to ensuring that new cars and vans in Northern Ireland are subject to the same carbon dioxide emission standards as elsewhere in the UK.
The regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK achieves its net-zero ambitions and legally binding carbon budgets. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister, who has outlined the changes to the regulations which amended the amended regulations and covered the specific issue regarding Northern Ireland, for reasons that she explained very clearly to the Committee.
This short debate also gives us the opportunity to consider some of the substantive issues behind the regulations. Alongside the decision to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030 and introduce new plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2035, the regulations are part of a very welcome set of regulations.
However, the key question remains: how do the Government intend to strengthen and reform vehicle CO2 performance and emissions standards to ensure that emissions from non-ZEV—zero-emission vehicle—sales continue to drop ahead of their full phase-out? Does my noble friend accept the views of Energy UK that the key objectives of the policy framework should be: making ZEVs more affordable—a key consumer concern, and an important part of a just transition; increasing the supply of ZEVs, a key challenge at present; continuing to drive improvement in all new cars and vans, to avoid emissions from non-ZEVs increasing ahead of their phase-out; providing certainty to consumers and industry to unlock private investment and provide a strong signal to the public about the direction of travel; coming in at an acceptable cost to the taxpayer; and providing good value for money? In summary, Energy UK says that the Government should
“Introduce a zero emission vehicles … mandate to provide a clear and binding trajectory for the increase in ZEV sales leading up to 2035.”
On CO2 emission standards, do the Government intend to provide a way to incrementally reduce emissions from new non-ZEVs by publicising them clearly and well in advance, and will they consider strengthening standards now?
Does the Minister agree that consistency in policy, transparency and adequate timing are all essential? To date, the scandals reported around monitoring emissions are important considerations. I believe that we have already learned the lessons from them. Baseline measurements and transparency are required. To ensure transparency in the emissions measurement process and to eliminate any doubt about the specific data reported by manufacturers, the emission reporting process and tools must be completely transparent to the Government, the trade and the general public for verification processes. This includes both the yearly emissions measurements as well as the specific reported CO2 emissions within the respective subgroups as defined by the original regulations. Does the Minister further agree that it will be key to the future decarbonisation of the heavy-duty transport sector to set ambitious and forward-looking CO2 targets—as I believe she intends—with strong zero and low-emission vehicle targets? Ambitious regulation and binding targets are key to reducing the risk of investing in zero-emission technology.
I support my noble friend’s work in this sector, I am very grateful to her, and I support the amending regulations before the Committee.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation, although I must admit—it is no fault of hers—that I found it about as opaque as the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI. I shall ask just three straightforward questions. First, are the EU and UK regulations still identical at the moment? Secondly, what is the Government’s view on divergence of those regulations, and therefore the export potential of UK car manufacturers into the European Union? Thirdly, if there is divergence, where does Northern Ireland fit in? I get the impression that, having been dropped from the protocol, UK standards would reign in Northern Ireland, although most manufacturing is within the single market. I should be interested to understand that.
To follow on from a question in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the 2030 target is incredibly important, ending the sale of vehicles with only internal combustion engines. When will the Government bring forward legislation to implement that policy? Until that is implemented, no one can have any certainty at all that that date will not be postponed. When will the Government bring forward legislation to move it from a wish list to a statutory requirement?
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this draft SI. She tried valiantly to make it intelligible, and she did better than the text of the SI itself, which is, probably of necessity, pretty opaque.
I have been looking at some of the issues in the Explanatory Memorandum and, in particular, paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2. I find it surprising that the amendments, being necessary, were thought of only on 18 December 2020, which was two weeks, including Christmas, before Brexit day. This may not be as important as the measures on importing fresh meat, and everything else, which are still being discussed between the UK and the EU in respect of Northern Ireland, but it does seem to have been completely forgotten. The Minister tried very hard in her explanation to rescue what is probably just about impossible to rescue.
I have one or two questions on the Explanatory Memorandum itself. First, on paragraph 7.5, we noted that no EU or UK regulations apply to Northern Ireland between now and 1 August, I think the Minister said. Does that mean that manufacturers who had been on the ball could have introduced the dirtiest possible emissions in cars, vans and other vehicles during the six to seven months when there have been no regulations, and nobody could do anything about it? Presumably, for that reason, nobody has been fined or even caught.
The Minister mentioned “pooling”, which is mentioned in paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It is easy to say that that is a good thing, because overall it will balance out the more polluting with the less polluting vehicles. However, I recall the failure of Volkswagen. The subsequent court cases are still ongoing, because it was alleged to have fiddled the figures on emissions—and one or two other manufacturers are, I suspect, saying, “There but for the grace of God go we”. This seems to be a way out for manufacturers to get away with anything they want. I hope that I am wrong and that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong, because it seems very odd.
That also applies to paragraph 7.16 and the phrase “carve out provision”. To me, a carve-up is something that should not be done but often is done to get away with what you should not get away with. Whether carving out is any different, I do not know, but I am sure that the Minister can explain why that phrase is used and what it means. It seems to me to allow manufacturers and distributers of vehicles—cars and vans in Northern Ireland—to register whatever they like from the present period up to 1 August, which reflects pretty badly on the Government’s arrangements there. On whether it will make any difference to emissions or pollution, I look forward to hearing what the Minister says because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we are looking for much more definitive information than we have at the moment on how we get to zero carbon.
Finally, with this extraordinarily complex but no doubt necessary regulation, what is actually wrong with keeping the EU regulations, even if we change the name so that Europe does not appear in the title? It might be a lot easier.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation, but I am relieved that the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Berkeley, used the word “opaque”, because I felt blinded by science but assumed I was the only one. This is an almost sneaky little piece of legislation, because it is presented as a regulation to continue the status quo but it is actually backfilling a regulatory loophole that was created by the Government; it did not have to be created. I am concerned that this little loophole has allowed some highly polluting vehicles to be sold in Northern Ireland. It is only in September of this year that the loophole will close, so highly polluting vehicles can still be sold until then. Clearly, it was negligent of the Government to allow this to happen. For some strange reason, they dropped Northern Ireland out of the EU emissions regime two weeks before the end of the transition period and then allowed a nine-month window of lawlessness when it came to selling polluting vehicles. Perhaps we could have some explanation of that, if it was not in the opening remarks.
Since Northern Ireland enjoys the dual status of being in the EU customs union as well as the UK internal market, I am worried that there is an opportunity for car manufacturers from across Europe and the UK to dump any remaining stock of highly polluting vehicles into Northern Ireland and for them to be sold perfectly legally. Is it possible that the Government created this nine-month free-for-all as a useful opportunity to prop up some car manufacturers and let them clear out their polluting inventory? I sort of felt that that was what the Minister was saying in her introduction.
I have a few questions. Can the Minister give details of how many vehicles have been sold in Northern Ireland through this loophole? How many more are left to be sold and are likely to be sold—I realise that is a harder question—before the September deadline? What is being done to prevent car manufacturers exploiting the loophole and dumping dirty vehicles in Northern Ireland, or do the Government just think this is fair game?
Lord Jones (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition in positive and committed terms. Surely all welcome the instrument, given genuine concerns about climate change, whether in Northern Ireland or in my homeland, the lovely land of Wales. In the context of the instrument and current public debate, will the Minister state how dangerous the diesel-engine car and light van are to the health of the citizen?
Climate change has been the motive for decisive action, but what of public health and the diesel engine? We might ask for how long successive Governments have known or not known of diesel’s threat to health. There were 18 respondees to the consultation. Just for the record, will the Minister name several of them? Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on consultation outcomes, states that respondees were “generally” supportive. Where were the differences? Was that but one manufacturer or association, or was there a general theme indicative of some opposition? Further, were the consultations Minister to Minister or official to official? Were they by email perhaps—one hopes not? Was the voice of local government taken? How are consultations organised by Her Majesty’s Government in an era of devolved government? Will the Minister explain this matter to the Committee? Against such inevitable, unforeseen questions in debates such as this, will she please write with answers?
Finally, in the knowledge that the Minister knows the brief and does care, I say that there is an elephant in the room. I put it like this. How does the woman in the street afford the requirement to change her car or her van? After her car or van, how does she afford the replacement for the gas boiler? Will she be assured that climate change policies under any Government will not presage considerable tax rises? I am sure the Minister shall answer these questions in written form, and one looks forward to the answers. I thank her.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and thank her officials for their helpful advice. This is the latest episode in the sad saga of the Northern Ireland protocol, and it is an example of the contortions the Government have had to undertake to enable the economy of Northern Ireland to function according to EU rules, as it must do in order to avoid a hard border, and at the same time to remain part of the UK economy. The solution, of course, was the only one available: that is that, effectively, EU standards will continue to apply.
In this instance, Northern Ireland was omitted from the previous SI, which covered just Great Britain, because of concerns about how Northern Ireland coverage would be achieved. Other noble Lords have referred to their worries in that respect. The result is, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, commented, that Northern Ireland has operated without any rules on new vehicle emissions since January, and will continue to do so until September. This gap has occurred despite the Department for Transport being fully aware.
Can the Minister explain why this SI will not be implemented immediately? The Government have a long record of introducing legislation with instant application; sometimes it is even introduced in retrospect. Since these same rules apply in the rest of the UK now, and since these are effectively EU rules, and therefore nothing new, I cannot think of a single reason why they should not immediately come into force, and why the people of Northern Ireland should not have the same protections on air quality as the rest of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, explained his concerns, and mine are very similar. My fear is that some unscrupulous dealers, or even manufacturers, may be using this legal lacuna to offload old stock or substandard products. After all, the Volkswagen scandal is less than six years old. Those vehicles were manufactured to deceive, fitted with defeat devices to disguise the real levels of emissions. Given the lengths they went to in order to cover up the scandal, it would be reasonable to expect some in the motor vehicle industry to try to take advantage of the gap in regulation now in Northern Ireland. Volkswagen was not alone. Since that time, there have been several other scandals of a similar nature, hence the EU’s attempts to tighten up on the way the emissions-testing system is undertaken.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have done any surveys or alerted trading standards in Northern Ireland to a potential problem as a result of this lacuna? What protection will consumers in Northern Ireland have if they buy a vehicle at this time and then subsequently find it is not up to modern emission standards? The Government would do well to keep a close eye on the Northern Ireland vehicle market.
On a fresh point, I want to ask about the interrelationship between this SI, and the previous one for Great Britain, and the recall clauses in the Environment Bill. We dealt with those last Monday evening; they will allow the Government to recall any vehicle which fails to meet the environmental and emissions standards applicable at the time of sale. My questions to the Minister that evening led her to confirm that recall could apply to a vehicle or its components that either did not meet the standards that applied when new or subsequently failed to meet them. Manufacturers will be liable for the full costs of recall, potentially including compensation to consumers. The Minister then confirmed that it was intended to apply to deliberate or accidental failure to meet the standards.
Can she explain where consumers in Northern Ireland will stand? They are happily buying vehicles now, probably unaware that no proper rules are in place. What will be their rights in a couple of years’ time if they discover their vehicle does not comply with the rules that should be in place, had it not been the case that the Government decided to leave Northern Ireland without legal cover for six months or so? Are the Government sure that the previous SI, for Britain only, will also fit neatly with the recall clauses?
It is a pity that the Government are still running to catch up on an issue as vital as vehicle emissions. If targets are to be met, they really need to be getting ahead by setting interim targets and incentivising consumers. I look forward anxiously to SIs for those, rather than SIs such as this, for which there are so many questions.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, CO2 emission performance standards set a maximum average level of CO2 emissions for new cars and vans, broken down into specific targets for each individual manufacturer. This issue of new car and van CO2 emissions was originally included in the Northern Ireland protocol, which meant that Northern Ireland would continue to align with EU regulations on this aspect in accordance with annex 2.
However, on 17 December last year, the UK-EU joint committee made a decision to remove two regulations covering emissions from the protocol, which meant that Northern Ireland was no longer expected to align with the EU on those regulations and could instead align with the Great Britain regime, making it a UK regime. The reason given by the joint committee was that the regulations relating to emissions of new cars and vans
“do not relate to the placing on the market of such vehicles in the Union. They should therefore be removed from Annex 2 to the Protocol”.
Removing these two regulations from the protocol, as the European Scrutiny Committee report says, also ensures that
“vehicles in Northern Ireland will not count toward EU manufacturer CO2 targets, and may count toward UK manufacturer CO2 targets instead. This clarifies Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.”
These regulations—I too thank the Minister for her introductory comments—extend the existing GB regime to cover Northern Ireland as well, now that Northern Ireland is no longer covered by the EU regulations on this issue. This will enable the UK Government to regulate CO2 emissions from newly registered cars and vans in Northern Ireland in the same way as currently regulated in Great Britain, effective from 1 September this year.
We are supportive of the UK-EU joint committee as a forum for finding practical solutions and agreement over issues with the protocol, and that the Government must work through the joint committee, which they do not always do. I have one or two questions to ask and clarifications to seek. The Explanatory Memorandum states that, because the two regulations covering emissions were removed so late from the Northern Ireland protocol, in mid-December last year,
“Northern Ireland currently has no CO2 regulations for new cars and vans, meaning”,
as others have pointed out,
“manufacturers are free to sell highly polluting vehicles in Northern Ireland without restriction.”
Can the Minister say whether the selling of highly polluting vehicles in Northern Ireland actually happened, as the regulations we are debating, which cover Northern Ireland, do not come into effect until 1 September this year? Can the Government also say why these regulations, which will cover Northern Ireland, could not have been brought into effect much earlier than 1 September 2021, or, alternatively, why the regulations applicable in Northern Ireland could not have remained in the protocol until 1 September 2021, when the regulations we are discussing come into effect, thus presumably avoiding any period during which there would have been no CO2 regulations for new cars and vans covering Northern Ireland?
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the need to provide a short period of time to allow industry to adapt to the regulations coming into force. What does this adaptation actually involve doing? Is there a difference between the CO2 regulations that applied in Northern Ireland prior to December 2020 and the regulations that will apply to Northern Ireland from 1 September 2021? As I said, removing these regulations from the protocol means that vehicles in Northern Ireland will not count towards EU manufacturer CO2 targets and may count towards UK manufacturer CO2 targets instead. However, since by 1 September 2021 there will have been no CO2 regulations for new cars and vans covering Northern Ireland for some eight months, does that mean that relevant vehicles in Northern Ireland will have counted towards neither EU nor UK manufacturer targets? If so, what exactly has been achieved by creating that situation, and will adjustments to the figures for this eight-month period subsequently be made to EU and UK manufacturer CO2 targets? The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that this will not be done. If that is the case, why not?
Following our departure from the EU, the Government’s policy for this year, as I understand it, has been to have a continuation of the existing EU-wide standards to minimise disruption for vehicle manufacturers. What, however, are the Government’s, intentions or plans for future vehicle emission standards in the UK, now that we are outside the EU? Or were the Government’s future intentions or plans covered by the comments the Minister made in her opening remarks? I look forward to the Government’s response to the points and questions that I and other noble Lords have raised in the debate.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I will add a bit more colour to the issues relating to the regulations and I will come on to other matters if I can; otherwise, I will write.
First, I point out in relation to the devolved nations and consultation that, because this is a Northern Ireland regulation, we obviously engaged with Northern Ireland officials on our plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and my colleague, Minister Maclean, sent a letter to the Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, informing her of this SI being laid on 8 June.
Let us go back to how we got into this situation. It was because the regulations were removed from the Northern Ireland protocol at the last minute. This was a decision taken by the UK-EU Joint Committee; therefore, when we did the previous EU exit SI, it was drafted on the basis of agreed international law at that point, and the regulations therefore covered only GB. It was anticipated that Northern Ireland would be in the protocol and then obviously that turned out not to be the case. Both the UK Government and the European Commission formally agreed that these regulations were not needed, so it was not a decision of the UK Government alone. Because this decision came relatively late, as noble Lords will know—it was on 18 December —we were unable to lay an SI to extend the regulations to Northern Ireland prior to the end the transition period in 2020. I accept that that created a gap in the law, which is what noble Lords are being asked to rectify today.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked why it took so long—he said it more nicely than that. The extent of the gap in the law—the setting of the date of 1 September, which is the date when these regulations would come into force—was dependent on two factors. The first is that the process of laying an SI takes many months and cannot be done very quickly, especially when it needs consultation with stakeholders. The second is the impact on manufacturers and their views following a consultation. The date of 1 September is actually a fairly short delay to what would otherwise have been achieved, and it provides manufacturers with a certain date from which the changes will take place and time for them to adapt. The need for this was voiced by stakeholders at a VCA and DfT workshop, where concerns about the regulations coming into force immediately were expressed.
Manufacturers were essentially given very short notice of the Government’s intention to change the regulation for Northern Ireland, which would have meant that new cars and vans sold in Northern Ireland would start counting towards their domestic targets immediately, but fleet compositions are typically set out well in advance. They would not have known about or been able to plan for the new regulatory regime. Northern Irish registrations, and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions, as a share of UK totals are far more significant than the same registrations in the EU. Therefore, extending the regulations to Northern Ireland could have impacted on manufacturers’ emissions.
In addition, a key concern for manufacturers is their ability to forecast their sales for the year. Manufacturers may know the vehicles they plan to sell in the UK, but they are not in control of where or when during the year they will be sold. For example, if in a particular year more electric vehicles were sold in the first half than the second, and if you suddenly included Northern Irish vehicles from, say, July onwards, that might artificially distort the manufacturers’ average emissions and you would therefore get a distorted image. Essentially, if we use the registration data from 1 September instead, the likelihood of that distortion falls away and the industry has time to plan and adapt.
Although it is the case that carbon dioxide emissions from newly registered cars and vans in Northern Ireland from 1 January to 31 August will not count towards any carbon dioxide emission targets, it should be noted that manufacturers generally do not create vehicle models or specifications for individual countries; they create products for larger geographic markets and have strategies for them. As a result, the vehicles sold in Northern Ireland so far this year will have been heavily influenced by both the domestic and the EU carbon dioxide regimes, which currently remain aligned.
I believe that the fears of both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are unfounded. It is useful to note that the sales of new cars and vans in Northern Ireland represent roughly 2.2% and 1.9%, respectively, of the UK’s total market. So even if higher-emitting vehicles have been sold in Northern Ireland, we expect that there would be an incredibly minimal change to greenhouse gas emissions. The data on the number of vehicles is not currently available. I cannot remember who referred to this—I believe it was in a conversation about air quality—but it is worth noting that the regulations cover only carbon. All cars sold must comply with particulate limits, which are obviously the contributor to poor air quality.
Thinking about the administration and enforcement of the regulations, their administration will be very much as the EU procedures are currently, with the exception, of course, that manufacturers will work with the Vehicle Certification Agency, the VCA, as the enforcement body, rather than the EU equivalent. At the moment, data is passed to the DVLA, as it will be in future, then it will get to the VCA, which is the enforcement body for the regulations. Every year, it will process the registration data and calculate the carbon dioxide performance and targets for the previous year for each manufacturer.
Any manufacturer exceeding that target when the dataset is published in October has to pay an excess emissions premium and has 28 days to pay or appeal it. That is what happens for new cars—that is, cars at first registration—but the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the Volkswagen emissions issue. The regulations also allow for random verification of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles in service. In this case, it is the DVSA that conducts random testing on new and, sometimes, used cars to ensure compliance. Also, all new vehicles are now required to store that data on board.
Many noble Lords asked me to go far beyond the regulations, and I would not want to steal the thunder of two bits of government activity which are coming very soon. We recognise that the retained carbon dioxide targets are not currently aligned with our commitments to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, nor, obviously, with the 2035 zero emissions at the tailpipe ambitions. We will be publishing the Green Paper on the UK’s future carbon dioxide regulatory framework very shortly. It will set out the frameworks that we could introduce to transition away from the most polluting vehicles and to support consumers and businesses to make the switch to zero emissions. The second piece of activity is the much more wide-ranging transport decarbonisation plan which will talk about how we decarbonise all modes of transport. I have listened very carefully to the questions in this area but I would not want to steal its thunder, as noble Lords will be seeing that very soon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, noted the Environment Bill. The Government intend to create a regime that will enable manufacturers to recall vehicles and non-road mobile machinery and vehicle components that do not comply with the environmental standards which they are legally required to meet. The Government will be able to set vehicle manufacturers a minimum recall level that they will have to achieve. In the event of the manufacturer refusing to comply with a recall notice or failing to meet the minimum recall level, they can be subject to civil penalties. Under these carbon dioxide regulations, manufacturers can already be issued with substantial financial penalties if they fail to meet their carbon dioxide targets. However, it should be noted that there is no upper limit on carbon dioxide for any particular vehicle. They are being set on a fleet-average basis, meaning that manufacturers can sell some vehicles which produce more emissions than average because there will be others that produce fewer.
I accept that I have not been able to go into detail on some of the questions that I have been asked today. I will be writing, particularly to provide further information around consumers and how we feel the market in Northern Ireland is behaving at the moment, but for the time being, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Death of a Former Member
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the retired noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on 7 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions confine them to two points and to no longer than 30 seconds? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Non-fatal Strangulation and Suffocation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Newlove
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made, if any, of (1) the number of non-fatal strangulation and suffocation incidents each year in England and Wales, and (2) the division of such incidents between (a) cases of domestic abuse, (b) cases of sexual violence, and (c) other situations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, while the Ministry of Justice holds significant information on offences, data is not collated centrally beyond registering the offence under which a defendant is prosecuted, convicted or sentenced. Non-fatal strangulation is not yet a specific offence, so it is difficult to identify how many people have been convicted of the various offences that can involve strangulation. Nor are strangulation offences likely to fit neatly into the categories of domestic abuse or sexual violence.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—and the new specific offence being introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act. Does my noble friend agree that assessing the scale of the problem is a priority so that the Government can be sure that there will be appropriate forensic, medical and other services for victims across England and Wales when the offence is introduced? Currently, forensic services tend to be available only when the attack is part of a sexual assault, and the majority of these attacks take place within domestic abuse, not involving sexual abuse. Does my noble friend therefore recognise that where there is forensic medical evidence, it should be documented and that already there are too few forensic medical services, so the new specific offence of strangulation and suffocation will require forensic services to be expanded?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I did not hear the first part of my noble friend’s question but, on the point she mentions, we seek to capture data in an appropriate way. As I explained, we focus on the offence, so when the new offence of non-fatal strangulation comes into force, we will be capturing data for it and that will, of course, help the services that she mentioned to provide their work as well.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her continuing tenacity. Will the Minister clarify whether there is a timescale for ensuring that real-time, important data will be collated, and will it be held centrally, once the police services have got their act together?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we are looking to bring in the offence of non-fatal strangulation as soon as we can. We waited to bring it in after Royal Assent to make sure that all the various services, including the police, are ready to investigate and prosecute it. Once we have the data, it will be used in an appropriate manner.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
Will the Minister consider launching an awareness campaign to run alongside the new offence so that the public are made more aware of the danger and criminal consequences of strangulation and suffocation? Does he agree that this is needed not just to help those being attacked as part of domestic abuse but to counter the normalisation of strangulation in pornography?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I agree that an awareness campaign is important. Of course, having the offence itself will raise awareness. Perhaps I may make a topical point. We know that domestic abuse goes up when there are big football matches and, while we all want England to win, we must remember those for whom “It’s coming home” is a threat often accompanied by alcohol and violence.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am always shocked that many police forces still do not have specialist domestic abuse units. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that now we have offences such as non-fatal strangulation, the provision of those units and specialist training for front-line officers are even more crucial? What steps are the Government taking to ascertain the proportion of domestic abuse cases that are dealt with by specialist teams, in order to improve the situation?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need important work by the police in this area. The College of Policing has issued guidance to all its forces to ensure that domestic abuse receives proper priority, and 29 forces have received that training as of June 2021. A recent evaluation showed a 41% increase in arrests for controlling or coercive behaviour.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, this week, an interim report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services had the headline:
“Epidemic of violence against women underway in England and Wales”.
The report contained the shocking figures of 1.6 million women who had experienced domestic abuse up to last year, and more than 150,000 rape and sexual offences recorded by police, 84% of the victims being women. Is there any cross-governmental action on engagement with men and boys to educate about and campaign against the causes of male violence and misogyny, and deal with what is now described as a “rape culture”?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I recently answered questions on the End-to-End Rape Review Report, which set out a robust programme of work right across the criminal justice system and beyond to make sure that we respond appropriately to rape and sexual violence offences. We want to increase the number of cases reaching court, reduce the number of victims who withdraw from the process and ultimately put more rapists behind bars.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention in California, which is helping tackle the crime of strangulation by sharing knowledge and training resources in the United States? Does he agree that, given the very welcome new offence in the Domestic Abuse Act, it would be sensible to investigate how a similar centre for expertise here could help drive the changes that the Government are making to tackle strangulation and suffocation? It could share training resources, encourage the sharing of knowledge and co-ordinate research so that more victims of this violence could be protected, and more offenders held to account for these crimes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am confident that my officials will be aware of that programme, but I personally am not. Could my noble friend write to me—or I will write to her—so that we can exchange information about that? It sounds like a very useful programme and I would be very happy to learn more about it.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is to be warmly congratulated on her successful campaign to include non-fatal strangulation in the Act. Does the Minister agree that, for it to be effective, we must have the kind of information that the noble Baroness has asked for—both the number of cases and their relationship to sexual violence more widely? I understand that it is not possible to have that information available now, but will he perhaps commit to reporting to Parliament within a year, when the Act has been in operation for a year, in response to her question about those figures?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we have to be a bit careful here. There will be a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, but non-fatal strangulation can also be an element in many other offences such as grievous bodily harm with intent. It can form part of a course of action that amounts to the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour. It can form part of just drunken thuggery outside a pub or a night club. We therefore have to be very careful. We collect statistics on offences; we do not really collect statistics on behaviour, and that lies at the heart of a number of the answers that I have given today.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill was hard fought for by victims and by Members across all parties in both Houses. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the relevant organisations are properly ready to implement the new offence of strangulation and suffocation? Have processes been put in place to ensure that training and guidance will be available before the offence comes into force, so that the police, the CPS, the courts, the health service and local authority domestic abuse partnerships are prepared and sufficiently resourced to tackle this crime effectively from its implementation?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, of course we need all agencies to be aware of their responsibilities. I have already spoken about the police. To pick another example, judicial training in domestic abuse is included in family law and criminal courses run by the Judicial College; it is prioritised for induction and continuation training. All judges get that training before they hear family cases and are therefore on top of domestic abuse issues.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, may I underline the point made by the noble Lord at the beginning of this session? My daughter-in-law did a thesis on the connection between violence, domestic abuse and sporting events. It is clearly a considerable problem. He is right to remind us of that.
The New Zealand Law Commission advised that the offence should require proof of strangulation but not proof of injury, on the basis that so many of these strangulation incidents do not cause visible physical injury. Is that the approach that the noble Lord is taking? Where does consent come into the new offence?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will take the point about visible signs of injury first. A visible sign of injury is not needed: the offence requires the Crown to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person strangled or otherwise did something to affect another person’s breathing. You do not necessarily need visible signs of injury. The consent point raised by the noble Lord is a huge legal point. I summarise it by saying that it effectively follows the decision of the House of Lords in R v Brown that you cannot consent to serious harm. To say any more would, I am afraid, exceed the time allowance.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Independent Office for Police Conduct
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the work of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the IOPC’s annual report, signed off by the Home Office, provides an assessment of its work, including details of performance against targets. The 2020-21 report will be published very shortly. On 15 June, the Home Secretary announced that she is bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC, which will consider the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, why has this organisation not published the results of its inquiry, which started two years ago, into the disgraced former chief constable, Mike Veale? He is the man who infamously said that Sir Edward Heath was 120% guilty while investigating allegations against him. Are the Government going to take heed of the demand from six former Home Secretaries—both Labour and Conservative—for an independent investigation of misconduct during Operation Midland, including that of the IOPC, which failed even to question the most senior police officer involved, Mr Rodhouse, and was unable to provide an adequate explanation to the Home Secretary when she asked for it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, there were quite a few questions there but, as I said in my first Answer, the Home Secretary has announced that she is bringing forward the periodic review of the IOPC. The Home Affairs Select Committee has taken evidence for its inquiry into police complaints and discipline and into the IOPC’s role and remit in general. As part of this, the committee questioned relevant parties, including the IOPC, regarding Operation Midland and its subsequent investigation. We understand, as my noble friend knows, that Lady Brittan has submitted evidence to this, but the overall point is that the IOPC is an independent body from the Government.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Is my noble friend the Minister aware that my experience with Operation Conifer, as the then chair of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation, persuaded me that the IOPC is not fit for purpose? Far from it—in effect, it allows the police to carry on marking their own homework, reinforcing a flawed process grievously lacking in genuine accountability. Is it not now time for radical reform?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I know that my noble friend has ongoing concerns about the handling of Operation Conifer by Wiltshire Police and the mechanisms for scrutiny of it, including by the IOPC or the IPCC, as it was at the time. The governance structures of the organisation were reformed back in 2018 to streamline decision-making and increase accountability, and we think that it has made good progress since then. The Government introduced further reforms to the IOPC in February last year, including giving it new powers to investigate matters on its own initiative.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, Graham Snell was brutally murdered by a lodger he had not invited into his home. He had complained to the police, but they failed to follow up those complaints. The IOPC investigated and it took eight months to highlight the multiple failings in this investigation, but nobody faces any penalties as a result. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that radical reform is needed, because there needs to be an investigative body that can issue penalties?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the IOPC is now completing investigations in just over eight months on average. This is considerably better than the IPCC, which averaged over 11 months in its last year of operation, 2016-17. As I said earlier, the Home Secretary has brought forward a review of the IOPC.
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, returning to the vexed subject of Mr Veale, who has already been described as “disgraced”, is the Minister aware that he was recently appointed by my successor as police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire to a senior adviser’s role in his office, as reported by the Times on 8 June? Regardless of the police and crime commissioner will not reveal the salary and responsibilities of Mr Veale, do the Government approve in principle of someone who was twice a senior chief constable and is subject to a serious review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct being appointed to a senior post in the office of a police and crime commissioner?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, without talking about any individuals, some time ago we made clear through legislation that going to a different force or retiring cannot exempt someone from being prosecuted or followed up for an offence for which they are a suspect. That is all I will say on that matter. It is up to the PCC whom they appoint.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, paragraph 264 of chapter 9 of the independent panel report into the murder of Daniel Morgan quotes the then deputy head of the predecessor to the IOPC as saying that while
“the IPCC … does investigate a small number of corruption cases you are aware that we are not currently resourced to carry out many or large corruption enquiries”.
Unlike its predecessor, does the IOPC have enough resources to investigate police corruption and, if not, who investigates if there are many or large corruption inquiries? Could it be the force itself that is accused of covering up misconduct?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In terms of capacity, the IOPC budget for 2021-22 is £69.6 million and it employs approximately 1,000 staff. To that extent, I think it is well-resourced.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
What is the Home Secretary expecting to get from bringing forward her review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct? Does she expect advice on whether its powers and resources should be strengthened and increased, since only 80% of conduct investigation cases are resolved within 12 months? Or does the Home Secretary have doubts about whether the IOPC—a body that this Government created—should now continue in existence at all, as she regards it as neither effective nor efficient? After all, a Home Secretary does not bring forward a periodic review of a body without having some view about the future of that body.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As she announced last month, the Home Secretary is bringing forward the review of the IOPC in part due to some concerns about Midland. The review will consider the IOPC’s governance, accountability, efficiency and efficacy, and should ultimately lead to better outcomes not only for the organisation itself but for the public and the police. It is quite routine for arm’s-length bodies to be reviewed, and doing it now is timely.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s recent words that
“profound concerns exist about the handling of the IOPC’s investigation into Operation Midland”,—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col. 128.]
to which I am sure she would wish to add Operation Conifer, as my noble friend Lord Hunt rightly emphasised. Now that the next review of the IOPC is to be brought forward, can we be told when it is going to happen? Does my noble friend share the hopes of many of us, in this House and elsewhere, that it will shed further light on the appalling blunders of the past in this area and who was and still is responsible for them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that the review will be expedited, as soon as possible. There will of course be an independent reviewer, and I will keep noble Lords and the House updated as to the timelines of the review.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in March this year the noble Baroness advised the House that, from this autumn, the Government would ask police forces to identify and record where any crimes of violence against a person are perceived by the victim to have been motivated by hostility based on their sex or gender. Has the consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council taken place? Has the Home Office produced guidance on this issue, and what is the timetable for its implementation? I realise that she may not have this specific information to hand but, if she has not, would she agree to write to me and place the letter in the Library of the House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the request to identify and record any crimes of violence against the person that the victim perceives to have been motivated by hostility based on their sex is in progress. Home Office officials have met with stakeholders to discuss the new requirement and the ability of police forces to record this data on their systems. Further discussions are scheduled with force representatives, with a view to start collecting from the autumn. When further updates are available, I will write to the noble Baroness and others on this issue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
International Freedom of Religion or Belief
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief Commentary on the Current State of International Freedom of Religion or Belief (2020), published on 1 March.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have taken note of the APPG’s report. The United Kingdom is committed to defending FoRB for all and we have made this a core element of the integrated review. We readily report on FoRB violations, and I worked closely both on the production of the Human Rights & Democracy report, in which FoRB features, and alongside the special envoy for FoRB, Fiona Bruce MP, on the implementation of the recommendations from the Bishop of Truro’s report on FCDO support for persecuted Christians.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply but, as we say in deepest Punjab, fine words butter no parsnips. The report shows that ignorance and exploitation of supposed religious difference is one of the greatest causes of conflict in the world today. The reality is that different faiths share many common ethical teachings. Does the Minister agree that the teaching of RE should focus on commonalities, rather than superficial difference? Does he also agree that the Government are sending out a wrong and shameful message in Dominic Raab’s statement that human rights should be ignored in the pursuit of trade deals?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first dispute that my right honourable friend has articulated such a statement. What he has made clear is that we will call out human rights abuses irrespective of the trading relationships we have with different countries. Being half-Punjabi myself, I am very conscious of the need for action. Being also a product of a Church of England school, and sending my own children to Catholic school, I am fully aware of the commonality of faith but recognise that each faith brings its own attributes to the diversity and strength of a country such as the United Kingdom. In our actions and our representations, we share those values with other countries in raising issues of FoRB around the world.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]
I thank the Minister for the priority he gives to freedom of religion or belief, but Her Majesty’s Government are reducing aid to many countries and regions prone to serious freedom of religion or belief violations, including an apparent 58% cut in ODA to Nigeria while the country faces immense challenges due to a surge in religious-based violence. Will the Minister describe the anticipated impacts of these aid cuts on violence and stability in Nigeria and indicate how any such impacts might be mitigated?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, we work closely with different agencies on the ground, including in Nigeria. I assure the right reverend Prelate that, notwithstanding the challenges and the reductions to the ODA programme, we are working with key partners to ensure that freedom of religion or belief and the persecution of religious minorities remain very much at the forefront of our work, both in development engagement and diplomacy.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]
The House will know that the training of Orthodox clergy at the Halki theological seminary near Istanbul is essential for the survival of the Church in Turkey and the ancient Greek Orthodox community. The seminary has now been closed for 50 years. Can the Minister press on the Turkish Government the importance of respect for beliefs, cultural legacy and rights of minorities, and that their continued refusal to allow the reopening of the seminary is at odds with the tolerance shown in the past and constitutes a serious infringement of religious freedom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we continue to raise freedom of religion or belief issues directly with Turkey. I will certainly follow up directly the matter she raised, both in our representations through the embassy and in any direct contact I have with representatives and Ministers from Turkey.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I follow up the important point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, focusing on Nigeria. The Government’s decision to cut spending on foreign aid to Nigeria by an apparent 58% is at a time when tens of thousands of civilians experience escalating, grave violations of freedom of religion or belief. Will the Minister describe the anticipated impacts of these aid cuts related to ideological motives? As the right reverend Prelate asked, how do the Government intend to mitigate any such impacts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said, we are working on all levels, including through development and our diplomatic engagements. For example, my colleague the Minister for Africa visited Nigeria in April and discussed the ongoing conflict but also the impact it has on issues in Nigeria, particularly on minority faith groups. I once again assure the noble Baroness that this remains very much at the forefront of not just my engagement, in my broader responsibilities as Human Rights Minister, but the direct engagement of my colleagues across FCDO, including my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it would be churlish not to recognise the provisions made on the matter before us and the reports that have received such positive responses from the Government. They have said that they will encourage, support and monitor the implementation of the recommendations. The pandemic has created an even greater threat to religious freedoms than hitherto. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that monitoring of religious freedoms is being undertaken, and perhaps even intensified, while the pandemic still rages. Can he assure us that parsnips are indeed being buttered?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I assure the noble Lord that I have my buttering knife out. We continue to monitor and report. Undoubtedly, the Covid-19 pandemic has been used as an opportunity to further suppress the rights of minority faiths across the globe, but we stand very firm in ensuring that we raise this issue consistently and monitor it quite closely.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
The all-party report shows that the world is a long way from perfect, but did not last night’s display at Wembley show that people of all religions and none, working together, can achieve a lot? Will the Government use that example to challenge intolerance everywhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. I assure noble Lords that, as my daughter said, I was “not very Lord-like” in vocalising my support when the second goal went in at Wembley. Nevertheless, it showed the real diversity and strength of our country: we come together for a common purpose. Sport is a living, working example of exactly that.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the report’s focus on gender. It specifically highlights the plight of girls in Pakistan at risk of forced marriage, violence and slavery. According to the FCDO’s own Development Tracker website, bilateral support to Pakistan is being cut by £175 million compared with what it was in 2019. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that Development Tracker is accurate and that this is the correct figure?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
There has been a reduction in development support to Pakistan, but my noble friend will acknowledge the important work we are continuing—for example, the AAWAZ programme until 2024, with a specific focus on women and girls. That was part and parcel of my recent diplomatic engagement in Pakistan. When I visited on 22 June to 23 June, there was a reassurance. We are also seeing what practical further steps we can take to ensure that any reductions in support are met through direct diplomatic engagement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the APPG report raises important issues facing religion and belief communities around the globe. The Bishop of Truro’s independent review for the Foreign Secretary on support for persecuted Christians contains many inclusive recommendations. However, they are built on evidence relating to, and focus on, Christian persecution. Will the Minister consider conducting further reviews into religion and belief persecution, including the plight of the non-religious around the globe? Many people have referred to Nigeria, and the Minister knows I have raised the case of the atheist Mubarak Bala in Nigeria. I hope he will consider that action.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I can give the noble Lord that direct reassurance. We will do exactly that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to what he said about the Truro review and specifically to recommendation 7, which asks the Government to put in place effective mechanisms to deal with the crime of genocide against religious and ethnic minorities. In that context, the report published this morning by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons recognises that a genocide is under way against Uighurs in Xinjiang and calls on the Government for a much stronger response. Can the Minister tell us what that response will be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have yet to read the report in full, although I am aware of its publication. I have not yet reviewed it. Bearing in mind its publication, I am sure that in due course the FCDO will respond accordingly. I can share with the noble Lord—I am sure he is aware of this—that the United Kingdom has consistently, regularly and directly raised the persecution of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang in China. We continue to do so. We recently worked through a resolution at the Human Rights Council led by Canada. In the past few weeks, I have met Uighur representatives visiting the UK to hear about their plight. I assure the noble Lord that this remains among our key priorities and will continue to be so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Covid-19: Co-ordination with Devolved Administrations
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the devolved Administrations to co-ordinate relaxing Covid-19 restrictions across the United Kingdom; and what assessment they have made of the need to agree such co-ordination.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations throughout the Covid-19 response. Although public health is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, our joint statement last September demonstrates our continuing commitment to seek a co-ordinated approach where the evidence and the science show it would save lives or make a response more effective to work together to protect lives across the UK.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, each step to restore some form of normality should be taken after full discussion between the four UK nations. England might call 19 July “freedom day” and end some restrictions, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not going to follow suit. We will have confusion and worse. We need full consultation. Who in the various Parliaments takes these decisions? Should we not consider legislation to make proper discussions legally required in any future crisis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are many discussions, and thoughtful decisions are made by the people responsible in all the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, I have no doubt. However, public health is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and those Administrations have the authority to make their own decisions.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, for families spread out across the UK who want to plan their summer holidays—I declare an interest as I am heading up to Scotland over the summer—surely the rules across the four nations should be the same wherever possible. All four nations have previously said they would follow the data, not the dates, but suddenly our Prime Minister seems to be driven more by dates than statistics. With this in mind, can the Minister expand a bit more on the discussions he talked about between the four nations? Are we looking at a further joint communiqué? September last year feels a long time ago.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord and many citizens of the United Kingdom about the future and how we move forward. The Prime Minister made a considered statement last week and will make another statement on Monday about the next steps forward as he sees them. Throughout the crisis we have been more aligned than we are apart. There have been scores of calls between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Ministers in the three Administrations.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Ideally, devolution allows for divergence across the nations and co-operation to deal with common interests and issues. That has been demonstrated throughout the pandemic, but Great Britain is an island with open borders and right now Scotland has the highest infection rate in Europe. The two main hospitals in the Grampian health board area—the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Dr Gray’s Hospital in Elgin—along with Raigmore Hospital in Inverness are on black alert dealing with only urgent and emergency cases as a result of catch-up for non-Covid, increasing Covid admissions and staff shortages because of Covid and isolation rules. Will Ministers across Governments work to ensure that as we move to lift restrictions we do so in a co-ordinated way that avoids the chaos and confusion that might otherwise occur?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there has been extraordinary support from the United Kingdom Government to the devolved Administrations, Scotland not least, both financial and practical. Indeed, I believe the UK Government have provided around 55% of tests in Scotland. However, I return to the fundamental point. I shall not comment on the performance of the devolved Administrations as I do not think that is appropriate, but they have devolved authority to act on public health within their borders.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the relaxation of Covid restrictions in England on the other parts of the UK when the inevitable behavioural changes impact on the devolved nations? Did that include cost estimates? Has consideration been given to transport systems moving people from one part of the UK to another? Will the transport police be supported in ensuring that passengers respect the infection control measures that are greatest along the route of the journey, whether the origin or the destination country?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my advice is that everybody should respect the rules in place. Rules are normally clear in whichever part of the United Kingdom. Further announcements are being made as we go along. My right honourable friend the Transport Secretary made an announcement on travel this morning, for example, and there will be further announcements next Monday. Of course all public health factors are taken into consideration.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
Today’s letter in the Lancet from 100 eminent doctors and scientists, including a former Chief Scientific Adviser and the current head of the BMA, whose members will have to pick up the pieces, warns that the 19 July relaxation of restrictions shows the Government
“embarking on a dangerous and unethical experiment”
and calls for a pause in the plans. The letter talks of “grave risks”, with
“any strategy that tolerates high levels of infection”
being
“a dangerous and unethical experiment”.
In the light of this, will the Government engage urgently with these experts and the devolved Governments to ensure the safety of all our people across the four nations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government naturally respect informed voices. I do not think that the publication place necessarily establishes authority; we have seen recent examples. There are diverging opinions, which Ministers and those in the devolved Administrations have to take into account. There are also divergent issues. The noble Baroness did not mention the impact on the economy, mental health, people’s expectation or children. All these matters have to be taken into account as we reflect on decisions.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD) [V]
Does the Minister accept that for residents in Northern Ireland, including those travelling to England and Scotland but particularly those requiring regular travel in and out of the Republic, the situation at the moment is incredibly confusing and bureaucratic? What discussions have the Government had with Dublin, in addition to those with Scotland, to find common ground by either applying the CTA to Northern Ireland or allowing Northern Ireland residents to apply for an EU digital Covid certificate as part of the Northern Ireland agreement on cross-border trade?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I confess that I cannot comment in detail on discussions with the Republic of Ireland but I will ensure that I inform the noble Lord appropriately.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, my Ulster Unionist colleague, the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Robin Swann, has been one of the heroes of the pandemic. I know that he has appreciated the co-operation, co-ordination and support offered to him and to the Province by the United Kingdom Government. However, given the success of the four-nation approach to tackling Covid-19, should we not now be working equally as closely towards the goal of bringing down NHS waiting lists, which in Northern Ireland were already much longer than anywhere else in the United Kingdom before the first lockdown and have worsened considerably ever since?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister met the First Minister on 3 June to discuss Covid recovery. I say to the noble Lord that clinical co-operation is ingrained in the NHS, and there are mutual and specialised commissioning arrangements already in place between the nations that allow patients to access services across the UK. We hope that these arrangements, as well as data sharing and best practice, will help to ensure a strong recovery and deliver tangible outcomes in the interests of people throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, further to that last answer and the point made by my colleague, my noble friend Lord Bruce, about the situation in Scottish hospitals at the moment, I am sure the Minister is aware that one of the biggest impacts of the coronavirus on health now is not those directly infected but those who have other health problems but cannot get treatment or whose treatment has been hugely delayed. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of the changes that they are now making regarding coronavirus on dealing with the enormous backlogs in the NHS? What co-ordinated action across the nations is taking place to deal with the problem of the many patients who are not suffering from coronavirus?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think I partially answered that in my previous reply. I can certainly assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government at the highest level are giving the highest priority to the recovery of the NHS and the treatment of cases other than Covid.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Howell of Guildford set down for today shall be limited to 2½ hours and that in the name of Baroness Jenkin of Kennington to 2 hours.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable a Motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (2020 UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021 to be moved today, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instrument has been laid before the House.
European Union and European Atomic Energy Community (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 May be approved.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the Statement today, which takes us further into the discussion that we were having on Tuesday and allows him to address some of the questions that perhaps he was not able to on Tuesday.
We all want our economy to open and get back to normal. The question is whether we do it in a controlled way or a chaotic way. The Health Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that, under the Government’s plan, infections could go to as high as 100,000 a day. There are some huge issues that the Minister and the Government have failed to address with information and clarity about the massive change in policy contained in the announcements on Monday and Tuesday. The first of these is surely the potential 100,000 infections a day in a few weeks’ time. When I asked on Tuesday about the scientific advice, the Minister gave me what can be described only as a pick-and-mix answer, one in which he said SAGE’s advice was “interesting”. I am sure that SAGE’s advice is always interesting, but is it being taken into account in decision-making as it used to be? I specifically refer him to the most recent SAGE papers, which made it clear that with high infection rates there would be a greater chance of new variants emerging and greater pressure on the NHS. More people will get long Covid and test and trace will be less effective. As NHS Providers said today,
“current pressures on the NHS mean that the predicted rising infection rates for COVID-19 will inevitably affect the speed at which trusts can recover care backlogs.”
I quote Chris Hopson:
“Trust leaders can see the strong logic of ‘if not now, when?’ and they recognise that, as a nation, we must learn to live with COVID-19. But they want the Government to be clear about the risks of relaxing restrictions. This includes the inevitability of higher hospitalisations and mortality, albeit at lower levels than previous waves and the risk of new and more dangerous variants emerging. They are also worried about the impact of long COVID. It’s important these trade offs are clearly set out, including the impact on the NHS’s ability to bear down on the backlog.”
Indeed, a letter from 100 experts in the BMJ today raises the same issues. That is why the impact assessment is so crucial. The Prime Minister seemed to find this impossible to address yesterday, so I would like to see if the Minister with his much greater and closer knowledge of these issues could be more enlightening to the House today. Have the Government undertaken an impact assessment of the projected rate of infection? Yes or no would probably suffice. If it is yes, when will it be shared with Parliament and the public? If it is no, the Minister must explain why this has not happened and tell the House when it might. We need to know what is the number of hospitalisations and deaths; what is the number of people with long Covid, which will be the outcome of 100,000 infections a day; and what is the impact on the NHS, will it slow down the catch-up for diagnostics and treatment and by how much? I am very happy if the Minister wants to email the details of the answers to me, if he does not have them to hand–although he ought and they need to be in the public domain.
We know that the link between infection rates and deaths has been weakened, but it has not been broken. All the experts seem to agree on that. Let us be clear why infection rates are so high: it is because the Prime Minister let in the delta variant. I agree with my right honourable friend Keir Starmer that we might now change its name to the “Johnson variant”. Let us be clear why the number of cases will surge so quickly: it is because the Government are taking all protections off in one go. As my right honourable friends Sir Keir Starmer and Jonathan Ashworth have said, this is reckless.
The next obvious question is the one about the dreaded ping and the huge number of people who will be asked to isolate. If there are 100,000 infections a day, that means hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions —of people are going to be pinged to isolate. The Financial Times estimates that it could be 2 million people and the Daily Mail says it could be 3.5 million people. Either way, it is a massive number. How many people do the Government expect will be asked to isolate if infection rates continue to rise at this rate? Again, this question was asked of the Prime Minister yesterday and he clearly did not know the answer or refused to say, so I will repeat it again: how many people are going to be asked to self-isolate if there are 100,000 or more infections a day?
Does the Minister appreciate that those who are immunocompromised or for whom the vaccine is less effective will have their freedoms curtailed by ditching masks on public transport? Blood Cancer UK warned yesterday that people with blood cancer will feel that their freedoms have been taken away from them. It is quite possible that the 19th will not be freedom day. It might be the day when a record number of people will switch off their NHS app, because they will see coming down the track isolating and cancelling holidays. It is already beginning to happen. Has the Minister seen those stories? We on these Benches do not support that course of action, but does he realise that this could seriously undermine the expensive track and trace system, on which so much depends?
I have to repeat again that the biggest barrier to an effective isolation policy has been not the inconvenience but the lack of financial incentive to stay at home. If we are to live with this virus, the days of people soldiering on when unwell are over. Sick pay is vital to infection control. Will the Government please now fix it?
Business leaders are expressing very serious concerns about the loss of staff and customers. There are now 700,000 children off school per week. At my grand- daughter’s school this morning, two classes were sent home due to two teachers being pinged. After-school sports were cancelled and she is very disappointed. It is happening everywhere, as our amazing head teachers and school staff limp towards the end of term doing everything they can to deliver teaching, joy and normality to our children under the most difficult and often underappreciated circumstances.
The question I want to ask for clarity from the Minister is about the ubiquitous ping. Is the ping advisory for self-isolation or mandatory? If you get an email or phone call, does that trigger mandatory self-isolation? Finally, I ask about data in the last 24 hours or so from Israel’s Ministry of Health, which points to the Pfizer vaccine being just 64% effective at stopping symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of the delta variant. Can the Minister tell the House about this?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, one year ago when lockdown was lifted, we had around 1,000 new cases a day. Yesterday it was 32,000 new cases. Equally concerning, cases are doubling every nine days; hospitalisations are going up; ventilation bed occupation is going up; NHS Providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, is talking about hospitals moving back into created-Covid wards and managing safe areas. GPs and hospitals are all reporting a worrying large increase in young people with long Covid, putting further pressure on their services, let alone the worries of an epidemic of long-term illness in the working population. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some hospitals are now considering cancelling some staff summer leave. Wonderful as yesterday’s England victory was, the sight of 60,000 fans walking down Wembley Way in very close proximity with hardly a mask in sight was concerning. As with the England-Scotland match, we must expect a surge in cases. Yesterday, the BBC asked Dr Mike Ryan of the World Health Organization about the UK proposals to lift all restrictions on 19 July. He replied:
“The logic of more people being infected is better is, I think, logic that has proven its moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”.
The letter in today’s Lancet from 100 senior medics and scientists echoes the WHO view. What are the Government doing to explain to the experts why their strategy is safe?
I will return to the substance of the Statement later, but I start by thanking the Minister for the meeting yesterday with other Peers, Blood Cancer UK and the Anthony Nolan trust to discuss the immunocompromised and the clinically extremely vulnerable. There are over 2 million CEV who had to shield—that is 3% of the population. So, arising from questions I have asked the Minister many times before in your Lordships’ House, I will ask the following. The CEV, of whom I am one, are worried at the total silence to them over recent weeks since shielding ended formally but, with stay-at-home advice still in place, with cases rocketing daily and all restrictions easing, can the Minister explain how advice to them is being co-ordinated publicly by government? One blood cancer patient said today to an APPG of parliamentarians that the dissonance of their safety versus everyone else’s freedom was hard to bear, especially with no advice. In particular, who has clinical responsibility for drawing together the different issues of therapies, responses to vaccines and continuing care for underlying diseases, and which Minister has overall responsibility?
Overnight, there have been some suggestions from journalists that shielding might even return. If so, that needs to be communicated very urgently to those at high risk, who have not been told about their low vaccine antibody rate. They may be planning to mix with people, or perhaps even go on holiday. Will benefit support for the CEV who have to stay at home but cannot work from home be reintroduced? If the Government are serious about the irreversibility of the lifting of all restrictions, some of the CEV will not be able to return to work for weeks, or even months.
I turn to testing. There are reports today that the Government plan to charge for the lateral flow tests from the end of this month. As LFTs are supposed to be the great self-regulators that the Government are relying on, how much are people going to be charged? You do not pay the Government for a blood test to see whether you have picked up any other infection. The level of charging for PCR tests for people returning from abroad also remains a big issue. Last week in your Lordships’ House the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, told my noble friend Lady Ludford that PCR tests could be obtained at a price of £85 for two. My noble friend’s local pharmacy is charging £398 for a test on the same day, or £240 for the next day for two tests. I know other members of the public have reported similar problems. Can the Minister say how the pricing of PCR tests is being managed and, perhaps more importantly, where one can find the “£85 for two” tests?
On Tuesday, I set out what we from these Benches seek in a return to normal life. We want people to return to work as soon as possible, to be able to mix with family and friends and for our children to be able to have consistent access to education without interruption. We also agree that now is the time to start to do some of that but—and it is a big “but”—we cannot get rid of all the safeguards that protect people mixing together while the virus is still live. An effective test, trace and isolate system is essential. This Statement makes it clear that that is being dismantled. Can the Minister explain why that makes any sense?
Last night, Sebastian Payne of the Financial Times reported the re-election of Sir Graham Brady MP as chairman of the 1922 committee, and tweeted:
“Brady’s re-election is … a reminder of why Johnson is dropping masks and nearly all other … restrictions on July 19: ministers privately say the government no longer had the … votes to keep the measures in place. Relying on Labour would have been … difficult for the PM.”
Are the Prime Minister and the so-called Covid Recovery Group now putting health and lives at risk for their own principles?
Finally, with the threat of 100,000 cases by the end of the month, with hospitals saying they are already worried about the increase in patients and with the threat of the new lambda variant and new north-east variant under investigation, please will the Minister confirm that these changes are not irreversible and that the protection of the NHS, and the safety of all the people in this country, remain the Government’s priority?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously thankful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, for such thoughtful questions. I will certainly try to address as many of them as I can.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the advice we get, I am afraid, as I said last time, that we of course draw on lots of advice from lots of people. I completely acknowledge, as she rightly pointed out, that no decision in this pandemic is risk-free. She set out the list of possible risks very well. There is always the possibility that there will be new variants. We are extremely concerned about the existing 1 million people who have self-diagnosed with long-Covid symptoms; the possibility that that number may rise is very much on our minds, and we are putting in place NHS provision to assist in diagnosis and treatment of that.
We are extremely concerned that test and trace resources will be stretched. We are therefore looking extremely closely at the policy around testing and isolation, while providing test and trace with the resources it needs to get through any increase in the infection rate. I also completely acknowledge the concerns of the NHS Confederation on hospital beds and hospitalisations —although the statistics on those today are extremely encouraging.
Those are all acknowledged concerns that we keep close track of, while putting in place measures to mitigate and minimise their impact. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, half-answered her own question, because she is entirely right: we need to focus on getting the NHS back to speed in order to address the very long waiting lists and to get elective surgery back on track. It is very difficult to find an answer to the question, “If not now, when?” That has been tackled by the CMO and a great number of people. It must surely be right that we take the inevitable risks of restarting the economy and getting people back to their normal lives at the moment of minimum risk from the virus, which has to be in the middle of summer. Assessing those risks precisely is incredibly complex. Impact assessments of the kind that we would normally associate with legislation are the product of months of analysis. They often identify one relatively straightforward and simple policy measure. We are talking here about a machine of a great many moving parts.
I cannot guarantee that any model anywhere could give us accurate projections of the exact impact of what is going to happen this summer. We are, to a certain extent, walking into the unknown: the Prime Minister made that extremely clear in his Statement. As such, we are ready to change and tweak our policy wherever necessary in reaction to events. However, what we know very well now on the basis of our assessment of the data, and because of the pause we put in place to give ourselves breathing time to assess and additional time to roll out the vaccinations, is that that direct correlation between the infection rate and severe disease, hospitalisation and death has massively diminished. There is a relationship, but it is a fraction of what it used to be.
We can therefore look at a period where those who are at extremely low risk of any severe disease may see an increase in the infection rate, because we know that those in the highest-risk groups have been protected by two doses of the vaccine, and two weeks, and because we are working incredibly hard to get as many in the high-risk groups vaccinated as possible—half a million a day—and to roll out the vaccine to younger cohorts. That is the balance. I cannot deal in certainty here, because certainty does not exist. Balance is key, and I believe the balance we have here is the right one.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the NHS Covid app. It is in some ways emblematic of the kind of decisions we are making at the moment. She is entirely right: the anecdotes are loud and clear. The app is pinging loudly around the country as the infection rate moves up. To clarify the legal point, as noble Lords probably know, the app protects privacy. We do not know the identity of the person who has the app. In fact, we have no information about people who have the app at all because it has such rigorous privacy protection. As such, the ping from the app is advisory but a telephone call from test and trace is mandatory. That has a legal status and a breach of that advice could lead to an FPN or a knock on the door. It has a different status in that respect.
Given the large number of infections and the large number of pings, we clearly need to review the way in which the app works. The Prime Minister talked about this earlier today. He talked about moving from a quarantine-and-isolation approach to more of a test-and-release approach. We are not quite there yet but we are clearly well on the way. Therefore, I would be glad to clarify how we have made those decisions once they have been announced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the plight of the immunosuppressed. I am grateful to her and to Anthony Nolan, Cancer UK and others who were on the call yesterday. I express complete sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness. If you are at home and your immune system does not work as well as other people’s, and you see the rest of the country opening up, you will feel extremely uncomfortable, as though the world has moved on and that you have perhaps been left behind. Those were the feelings described to me by the experts I met yesterday. On an emotional level, I completely sympathise with that. There are some people in this country whose immune systems do not protect them from flu and contagious diseases that would have no impact on those with a fully functioning immune system. We have complete sympathy for those people.
I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point that there is a need for clear advice because the immunosuppressed are a highly diverse group. There may be people recovering in hospital with a completely flatlined antibody system, compared to someone who has rheumatoid arthritis but is otherwise living at home and is mobile. It must be right that that communication is done on a tailored basis through the healthcare system. We will look at ways in which we can ensure that GPs are informed and have the right information in order to give that bespoke advice.
The dissonance is hard to bear. I recognise the noble Baroness’s point but I do not necessarily have a suite of answers for absolutely everyone in this condition. We have large investments in antivirals and in therapeutic drugs, including some of the monoclonal antibodies that may offer some protection to some people in this situation, but it is not going to be a blanket measure. As a result, we are putting a huge amount of investment in the OCTAVE study, which looks specifically at ways in which vaccines, boosters or therapeutics can be used to protect those whose immune systems are not right. Ultimately, it is going to be down to the vaccine. The vaccination of a large proportion of the population, including the carers who look after the immunosuppressed, is how we will offer protection to these people.
On the noble Baroness’ question about the LFT system being dismantled, I do not recognise those press reports. On the provision of PCRs by the private sector, she asked how prices are determined. The answer to that is through the market. The marketplace introduces competition and innovation. I am pleased to say that the price for tests is coming down and will come down further. The one provided by Chronomics for TUI is now £30; that is a very encouraging sign that there is more to go.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
On behalf of the whole House and the whole population, I congratulate the Minister on his magnificent work during the entirety of the pandemic and, of course, all his colleagues and everyone in the National Health Service. It has truly been a real world-beater and we are all so grateful. I have a matching point on Covid-19. I had understood, maybe wrongly, that males are affected slightly differently to females. Given that hospitals now accept self-identification of males and females, does this impact on the statistics or indeed on the treatment that everyone receives?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I understand the question put by my noble friend but I am afraid that I do not recognise the anecdote to which she refers in terms of hospitals’ treatment of individuals. Nor do I particularly recognise the generalisation that males and females are affected by the disease differently, but I would be very happy to look into this matter and write to her if I can find more details.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I thank the Minister for his responses and for the meetings he has set up. Using his words, given the challenges of “getting the NHS back to speed”, as well as the predicted rise in seriously ill patients with infections— both from influenza and Covid variants such as beta, lambda and others that may emerge—what contingency plans are being developed and activated now? What is being done to increase bed capacity for the autumn and winter and to recruit, train and upskill staff who have currently stepped back from or retired from clinical care, to increase overall capacity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right to make the connection between Covid and flu. We regard the winter as presenting two pandemics, and we will treat them with equal energy. Flu and Covid have the same net effect on the healthcare system, which is to be a huge drain on resources. So we are putting a huge amount of effort into the vaccine and boosters for Covid and the vaccination against flu. They can be taken together, and the advertising and promotion distribution to identify priority groups will be extremely energetic. That is the most important thing we can do to protect the NHS. Our second priority, though, is getting the beds to which the noble Baroness referred used for elective surgery. We do not want to see the NHS heaving under the pressure of Covid and flu. We want to see it addressing the backlog.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to return to my noble friend Lady Thornton’s first question, given the continued rise of the variant mutations and increasing infections, can the Minister report on a simple biological issue? What rapid mathematical calculations are in the Government’s possession to assess and predict the increasing risk of further new variants evolving that may escape the current vaccines or are more virulent? If he is unable to answer this question now, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot promise to have a simple algorithm to make the calculation that the noble Lord refers to. I will ask the system if such a thing exists, but I have never come across such a thing. The challenge he alludes to is entirely right: the vaccine pressure on the virus will create the circumstances in which variants are possible. That is why we are investing heavily in sequencing, not only here in the UK where everyone positive is now sequenced thoroughly and studied, but also offering that around the world through NVAP—the new variant assessment platform—to try to understand what is going on in markets around the world. To date, we think that we have tracked down all the current routes that the virus is taking, and we are satisfied that they are met by the vaccine, but we keep our eyes peeled.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, evidence shows that those in close contact with a positive case need to be traced with 48 hours to break the chain of transmission. Regardless, if close contacts have to self-isolate or self-test, how does stopping a mandatory requirement to register, either digitally or manually, on entering a venue such as a pub or restaurant help with the effective tracing of close contacts if no record exists of people in venues where positive cases are identified?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the registration of people going into events is an onerous responsibility for the hospitality industry and we have to make a proportionate assessment of what kinds of burden we are putting on the economy and society. With more than 60% of the population now having been double vaccinated for over two weeks and with the vaccination programme going along at 500,000 a day, it is the moment to start backing off on some of these obligations. That means dismantling some of the infrastructure of test and trace, which we seek to do in a proportionate and logical fashion.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
Given the prediction of increased infectivity, what internal guidance is being given post 19 July within the NHS? Will GP surgeries, A&E and outpatient departments revert to their former practices, or is the guidance that they should retain face masks, distancing and hand gel use?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, on the three specific locations the noble Baroness asked about, I understand that those practices will remain in place, but I am happy to check that and write to her. As for going back to where we were before, I think some things will change for ever.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, 120 scientists have written to the Lancet and today come together in an emergency summit to ask the Government to rethink their plans. The editor in chief warned against
“a plan driven more by libertarian ideology than prudent interpretation of the data”
and called for continued mask-wearing, distancing and increased vaccine coverage. A YouGov survey found that two-thirds of people want to continue with masks and an ALVA survey found that three-quarters of people did. So why have the Government decided to end this simple yet effective measure? It costs the economy nothing, but it would be life-changing for the clinically extremely vulnerable, who will be forced back into lockdown by this shift from a public health approach to so-called personal responsibility.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am always grateful for the challenge of medics in the Lancet and elsewhere. I would like to reassure them that this is not a question of libertarian ideology but a question of assessing the risks faced by the country. We have discussed masks several times in the Chamber. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that masks simply are not a panacea; were the whole country to wear masks for the rest of their lives, we would still have pandemics because they offer only marginal protection.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am afraid we cannot have in place laws on the intimate practicalities of people’s lives for the long term. We do not have a law on sneezing. I would not think of sneezing in the presence of noble Lords, but I do not accept that I should be given a fine for doing so.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following calls from the BMA, the RCM and Cambridge University Hospitals, can we have an assurance that in every setting where health workers are caring for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus, the health worker will be wearing at least a close-fitting FFP3 mask, thereby maximising personal protection? Can we be assured that the wearing of regular masks in such conditions will not be permitted? Mask specification is critical in healthcare settings.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s expertise on mask specification is well known in the Chamber and I bow to his greater knowledge on this. Of course, healthcare workers, social care workers and anyone exposed to those known to be carrying coronavirus should have entirely appropriate and significant protection. I do not know the precise mask numbers, but I would be glad to write to the noble Lord to confirm the current guidelines.
Lord Oates (LD)
Is the Minister aware that the comments he just made about the effectiveness of masks are not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense? Will he withdraw them?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do not accept that at all. The noble Lord does this debate no favours by using that kind of language. The argument I make is extremely reasonable. It is supported by the Chief Medical Officer and the other scientific advisers we have in government. I would like to ask the noble Lord to reflect on the manner of that question.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was contacted by NHS Test and Trace and asked to self-isolate earlier this week. I am double jabbed, I have no symptoms, I have had Covid, I have been testing myself every day with lateral flow devices and I am negative every day. The CBI, of which I am president, is finding that many companies and businesses are complaining of losing employees. The NHS itself is complaining of losing staff because of self-isolation. Surely, we have to move as quickly as possible to a test and release system so that people can get on with work. Will the Minister confirm that lateral flow devices will continue to be made available free to businesses and citizens? If not, it will be penny wise and pound foolish.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s frustrations, but he is illustrating the delicacy of the inflection point we are currently at. Only 60% of people are in his fortunate position of having had two jabs for over two weeks. That is a huge reservoir of tens of millions of people who are unvaccinated. There is also a very large number of people—3.5 million in total—on the shielding list who have some kind of vulnerability. The noble Lord could be carrying the disease even though he has been double vaccinated. Of course I aspire to the destination the noble Lord described, but we cannot rush it. We are taking it in a proportionate and logical fashion, and we are absolutely keeping our eye on the kinds of down side risks the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, described.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact we are losing our obsession with Covid and learning to live with it. Earlier this week the Minister mentioned the NHS winter plan and said that it would be published. When will it be published and will there a be an arrangement for it to be debated and regularly reviewed so that we can see how we catch up with the huge backlog of health conditions that need dealing with?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s kind comments. On the NHS winter plan, he is right that I implied that it would be published. I have looked into this and my understanding now is that it is not a document due to be published imminently, as a winter plan was published in the autumn of last year. There are plans in place and I am working hard to try to provide my noble friend with whatever information I can.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I asked the noble Lord on Tuesday what assessment the Government have made of Covid deaths and long Covid rates after the proposed 19 July changes. He did not answer. Will he do so now?
What incentive is there to uphold the test and trace system when a common interest between employer and employee is keeping their workplace open, particularly if sick pay is poor and self-isolation an unaffordable choice? If, as the noble Lord says, we do not know how many people use the app, how will we know if its use is dropping like a stone? What evidence will we have that it is becoming less effective?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I did not quite say that I did not know how many people use the app; I said that we do not know who is using it. We keep an eye on it and, to date, its use has not dropped, but we are naturally concerned that trust in the app will deteriorate and that is why we are looking carefully at the advice that comes out of being pinged. Some 19 million people have the app. It is an enormously valuable resource, and one that we believe has made a big impact.
Predicting long Covid and infections is extremely difficult because we do not know what the infection rate is going to be. We are in a race against the virus. I hope that very soon the impact of the vaccine will bring R below one and the disease will start going down instead of up. But I cannot tell the noble Baroness, exactly when that date will be.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, last month the Minister made some highly critical comments about my having had the temerity to question the wisdom of government restrictions. Yet we now know that the last Secretary of State did not believe in their value either. Given the small risk to children and teachers from the virus, can my noble friend explain what the value has been—backed by evidence—of severely disrupting the education of hundreds of thousands of children by enforced isolation? Or should we be similarly sceptical about that policy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend is sceptical of almost everything to do with the Government, and I am not quite sure how to address that question—but I will take it seriously. The bottom line is that children are a vector of infection, and, during the tough days before the vaccine, they were the ones who spread the disease around, accounting for a very large proportion of the numbers. As a father of four, I can tell you that it was extremely frustrating to have our children sent home, but, none the less, it was an important and impactful aspect of our fight against Covid.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, at the press conference on Monday, the Prime Minister drew a distinction between crowded Tube trains and relatively empty carriages on trains, where he might choose not to wear a mask. The Health Secretary made exactly the same point on Tuesday’s “Today” programme. However, the Minister will be aware of the research showing that aerosols can hang in the air for many hours in enclosed spaces—which train carriages are. Despite what the Minister has just said about face masks, will that important factor be taken into account when a final decision is made about mask wearing on trains and other public transport?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord will remember that, when we spoke about masks the day before yesterday, I re-emphasised my personal commitment to wearing masks. In no way do I want to leave noble Lords with the impression that I do not think that masks can play a role—I just do not think that we should be guilty of displacement and assume that masks will somehow solve all of our problems. The thing that will solve all our problems is the vaccine, and, when a larger proportion of the country is vaccinated, that will make an impact. But the noble Lord is entirely right: aerosols do hang in the air for a long time. You can breathe and cough into the air now, and someone can walk into that cloud minutes or even an hour later and catch the disease, as happened in the famous incident in Australia. We are very conscious of the point that the noble Lord makes, but a proportionate strategy on masks is reasonable.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I accept of course that the choices for Ministers such as the noble Lord are very difficult, but, with just half the population fully vaccinated, experts say that the 100,000 daily Covid cases predicted by the Secretary of State after he lifts restrictions could mean around 200 deaths daily. Is that an acceptable price to pay for living with the virus, when Professor Anthony Costello predicts a rampant third wave?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State did not predict 100,000; he accepted that it was a possibility. I do not accept that we should welcome any deaths in any way. Our hope is that, in the race against the disease, the vaccine will win, R will be brought to below one, the spread of the disease in the UK will be brought under control and any third wave—there will be one of some kind—will be focused on the unvaccinated young, whom the disease largely passes straight through. That is what we are planning on, but we accept that there are risks; that is why we look at the situation daily, and we will change our policies if necessary.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Statement. Given the warnings of millions of infections and millions suffering from the serious impact of long Covid, are we not opening up too soon without planning, as was well stated by my noble friend Lady Donaghy? Worryingly, we apparently do not have data on the numbers of infections and those with long Covid among those who have been fully vaccinated, as I have—why? Like others, my grandchildren are among the millions of children affected by many school absences, with many finding the regular testing extremely difficult. Is the Minister aware of Abu Dhabi’s Biogenix Labs’ non-invasive saliva testing, which is being used widely and effectively? Are the Government considering a rollout among our own school population? Finally, I add my voice to calls for the Government to publish an equality impact assessment, specifically with the differential effect on diverse and vulnerable communities.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely accept the question on whether we are moving too soon; it is a perfectly reasonable question. The counter suggestion is this. Say we waited until 85% of the population is double vaccinated, which would be in, say, October—would that necessarily be a better time to do this, when the NHS is at its most stretched and the winter conditions and cold encourage the spread of the virus? We have looked at it really carefully and, on the balance of risk, today is the right day to make these decisions.
On saliva testing, I pay tribute to those who are working here in the UK on the LAMP system, which we have prioritised with a huge amount of investment, particularly for those from special needs schools who find swab testing uncomfortable or really do not like to do it. We hope to report back but I am afraid to say that saliva testing has so far proved to be quite a difficult challenge, and it has not met all the tests that we would have liked it to have done.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, declaring an interest, I ask my noble friend to guarantee that all octogenarians will have a booster jab in the autumn? I apologise for returning to this, but can he guarantee, on the Floor of this House today, that all care workers in care homes will be obliged to be vaccinated no later than September?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have a prioritisation list for the booster and the third jab. It is my understanding that octogenarians are in category 1, but I am happy to write to my noble friend to confirm that point, in case I have got that wrong. I share my noble friend’s aspiration on care home workers. We are in a consultation; I cannot make the guarantee that he asks for because it is an honest consultation. We have to take people with us: this is not something that we can impose on people against their will. When the consultation has passed, I am hopeful that we will be able to take the steps that he describes.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Minister on his track record of appearances in the House. I will raise two brief subjects with him, both of which have been raised today, neither of which he has addressed. First, are there plans to charge for the lateral flow test? It is now being delivered to people less than 24 hours after they request it, and requests will certainly go down if there is a charge. A clear answer on that would be useful. The second issue is shielding. When the Prime Minister makes a Statement on Monday, in advance of 19 July, it is crucial that something is said about people who were shielding before; they must not be left in limbo and ignored. They could at least be given a warning that they will be given, say, a week or 10 or 14 days before they need to shield, which would remove part of the worry from the large changes due to take place on 19 July. I ask the Minister to respond on lateral flow test charging and shielding, please.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, on lateral flow tests, I said that I did not recognise the press reports that the noble Baroness mentioned, and I still do not. On shielding, I completely agree with noble Lord. Some 1.5 million patients are identified as CEV-equivalent through the new QCovid model, and they have been added to the shielding patient list, with 820,000 who had not previously been invited as part of the JCVI cohorts 1 to 4 given priority access to vaccines. Overall, 3.8 million—I think I said 3.5 million earlier—individuals are on the shielded patient list, and we continue to maintain that through the NHS. We will look at the QCovid model and see if we can apply mix-and-match vaccines, booster shots and third shots to that model, and if we can bring together a new risk assessment for those who are vulnerable. That list could therefore be applied to any future shielding or protection that may be needed.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord the Minister, in his usual courteous and helpful manner at the Dispatch Box, to provide answers to points raised yesterday with the Prime Minister in another place. In his usual way, the Prime Minister answered by asking yet another question, which of course earned another rebuke from the Speaker. If infections are allowed to rise, perhaps to 100,000 per day, how much are hospital admissions likely to increase and how many deaths may result? Why are the changes regarding isolation not taking effect until 16 August, with all the disruption to businesses in the interim?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The bottom line is that we believe that any rise in the infection rate will not have an impact on hospitalisation in a way that will disrupt the NHS. This is something that we have worked on with NHS colleagues, the clinical directors, the CMO’s office and the JBC, and we have taken into account a large variety of advice, including from SAGE. At the end of the day, it is our belief that, despite the rise of a third wave, hospitalisation rates will be manageable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the 3.8 million patients on the shielding list, will there be special provision for them to have antibody testing? Many of them may have had the vaccine but will not be sure whether it has been effective. Will there also be practical support for them? For example, if they do not feel that it is safe to go out, will there be help with shopping, special arrangements for medical appointments and other practical help?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We have committed to issuing guidelines for the vulnerable and immunosuppressed before 19 July. I cannot share with the noble Baroness at this stage exactly what those guidelines will say, but her points are very well made. We have not made a decision on antibody testing yet, but she raises an important point. We have a number of therapeutics and antivirals that may provide either prophylactic protection or support in the case of infection. Knowing whether somebody has antibodies before they go into the winter is one of the things that should really help to provide reassurance as well as important clinical data on how treatment might pan out. We are looking at the use of antibody tests for that reason.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Statement says that there are currently no plans to vaccinate the under-18s. Can the Minister indicate what the possible timeframe could be for reversing that decision and vaccinating that cohort, taking on board that around 0.5% of pregnancies are to girls aged under 18? Will he further elaborate on the fact that the Prime Minister indicated that there will be deaths—quite a large number—when we open up? What level of deaths do the Government consider acceptable?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the vaccination of children is something that we are looking at; it is with the JCVI at the moment, I understand. I do not have the precise timetable at my fingers. What I will say is that we of course need to vaccinate as many adults as we can and will therefore move to children after that, because they are the ones who least need that protection. My nephew has been vaccinated in another country; I have spoken to him about it and it is very touching to hear him describe how he now feels that he can visit relatives who might be vulnerable or have co-morbidities. He sees it as a contribution to the national well-being. That is exactly the spirit in which we go into this but, as I say, it is up to the clinicians to make their pronouncement. We wait to hear from them before we can make a decision.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
UK–Commonwealth Trading Relationship
Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House takes note of the progress made in renewing the United Kingdom’s trading relationship with Commonwealth countries.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, past and present, on Commonwealth matters as in the register: I am a former Minister for the Commonwealth and former president of the Royal Commonwealth Society.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss Commonwealth developments with your Lordships. Now that we are told that the Commonwealth has moved to the centre of UK trade plans, it is clearly obvious that we should focus hard on these issues. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to the Opposition Front Bench, as I understand it is her first appearance in this role. It will not be a joy-ride of course, but she will certainly find it different from her very high-profile roles in the other place and her prominent position in her party. We wish her well.
It is impossible to comprehend the Commonwealth today, or its future direction and prospects, without understanding how it has evolved and is still evolving as a result of the worldwide communications revolution and its fundamental impact on all global networks, of which the Commonwealth happens to be the largest. Whether we are looking at public or private network systems or those that operate between the two spheres, the incredible potency of instant and continuous communication and exchange has changed the way that nations relate on all issues, the way that groups and interests relate and, indeed, the way that people relate.
The plain and obvious fact of existence now is that technology has enormously empowered network structures of all kinds as against traditional hierarchies of governance, with their inevitable centralising traits. The tendency of Commonwealth critics today—of whom there are a few, including not a few academics who dismiss the Commonwealth—springs from what these learned folk think they see through the lens of officialdom and government, as well as the lens of the past. To take a recent example, the modern Commonwealth was recently called
“an irrelevant institution afflicted by imperialist amnesia”,
by someone who, frankly, should have known much better.
However, in the age of networking and digital connectivity, the binding ties of a voluntary, non-treaty, global organisation such as the Commonwealth are sealed as much by enterprise and trade, civil society concerns and common everyday life and work interests as through government channels—indeed, even more so. This is of course what gives the Commonwealth today its vibrancy and brings it alive as never before. The Library briefing for this debate is a bit wrong in this respect when it says that three intergovernmental organisations are at the core of the Commonwealth association. It is not so; in fact, it is the nexus of non-governmental organisations, professions, business interests, education at all levels, science, law and hundreds of informal links, not to mention sports connections and the enormous and expanding range of arts and cultural links of every kind, that are increasingly at the core of the Commonwealth. They are all areas where, nowadays, soft power is at its most telling and effective.
Networks never sleep. The future pattern of international relations will be—and is already—far more through interest groups, professions, twinning of cities and dialogue between them, business conferences and initiatives, universities, research and discovery, shared technology and innovation, and a thousand other connections than through any formal governmental or official channels or agreements. It is precisely this quality which makes the Commonwealth, in Her Majesty the Queen’s own words,
“in many ways the face of the future”,
and why some more far-seeing commentators cite it as a model for international co-operation on issues large and small in the world we are moving into. This is a pattern of fluidity and resilience that no old-style hierarchies or alliances, burdened with their heavy furniture of top tables, pecking orders and costly central secretariats, can ever match.
The detailed, unfolding Commonwealth trade and investment prospect will, I am sure, be explained later in this debate by my noble friend Lord Marland, who chairs so ably the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council and deals with some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing consumer markets, especially in Asia, which the Commonwealth now embraces.
I should say a word to your Lordships about the Brexit effect on Commonwealth economies, about which there were initially some fears. Most, if not all of these, were addressed fairly thoroughly in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and most countries that have partnership agreements with the EU have been covered by free trade agreements with the United Kingdom—or at least bridged by the generalised scheme of preferences.
Meanwhile, the immensely effective work of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—we call him our own—and the International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, is opening up deals and opportunities with Australia, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, Ghana and a dozen other countries, and we hope, in due course, with the giant of all, India, although frankly that will not be easy. There is also the African Continental Free Trade Area, which will create the largest single free trade area in the world and is heavily Commonwealth-weighted. Then there is our application to join the rather clumsily named Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Half its membership just happens to be from Commonwealth countries and it opens access to massive new markets for us, including the world’s biggest markets—as long as we meet the common rules and standard required, of course. We also have to remember that there is a leading Commonwealth figure—the wonderful Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala—at the helm of the World Trade Organization, so we are very well placed in this system.
The Zoom experience, which has mushroomed in the past year of the pandemic tragedy, has greatly increased the value of the key characteristics of the Commonwealth system and opened doors to multiple new initiatives. The new technology now swiftly gathers into one “room” hundreds of participants from across the planet where a mere handful could be assembled before. Of course, the cost of travel and accommodation in coming together are no longer the constraint that they were. This means that bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, based in Vancouver—already one of the largest distance-learning organisations in the world—can have continuous meetings and contacts with new levels of frequency. It means that, through bodies such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities, scholarly exchange, tutorship, and discussion on trade can be lifted from the cold text to friendly conversation in an instant. It means that business conferences and seminars can be organised on a global scale with new speed and ease. It means that intimate co-operation on areas far outside trade and culture—such as energy, properly tailored climate assistance, security, defence and intelligence—can be, and is being, built up like never before.
With the English language as the protocol of the planet, and with the soft power of influence and persuasion being the prime currency of international exchange, these new worldwide conditions fit the open hand of the Commonwealth system like the proverbial glove, frankly. I think it is the professors and the regular Commonwealth decriers, as well as some of our dismissive foreign policy and trade gurus, who are the real amnesia sufferers. They stare into the past and forget to study how the world has radically changed, how the Commonwealth has grown and changed totally since its 1949 inception, and how new forces of cohesion and co-operation are now at work within the world wide web that embraces us all.
I should add that, while we are rightly talking about trade, business growth, prosperity and poverty escape, we must remember that trade depends absolutely on peace and security. Here, too, the Commonwealth’s significance is growing, both in conventional forms through joint naval co-operation and in the new defence and security areas of cyber defence, intelligence, unmanned weaponry, aerial and marine, artificial intelligence and, of course, co-operation on terrorism prevention in all forms.
An effective and common front in containing China in Asia is going to depend on Commonwealth-dominated organisations such as Five Eyes, which need to be kept in tip-top condition, and on close defence co-operation at all levels with Commonwealth members. The new move to counter China’s belt and road initiative as it advances across the world is by the so-called Blue Dot Network initiative, combining public and private investment projects. That also depends heavily on commitment from Commonwealth countries and on Japan, a nation that has always taken a shrewd and close interest in the networking potential of Commonwealth—rather more than interest than has sometimes been shown right here in the UK.
World markets are changing fast, both geographically and in their nature, as services and technology transform trade flows. Distance matters less and less. All the modelling now suggests substantial scope for increased intra-Commonwealth trade. For one thing, we can obviously offer in this country a trade regime that is less heavy than the European Union pattern, although we need to keep close, good and sensible relations with the EU. Straightaway, we can be less protectionist where some industries and interests, which the EU strongly protects, are ones that we simply do not have and do not need to protect. Someone pointed out the other day that we do not need to check every lemon that comes into the United Kingdom because we do not grow lemons, as far as I know. That is just one small example of a different approach we can take.
My overall conclusion is the same as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reached three years ago in the excellent inquiry by the All-Party Group on Trade Out of Poverty, which he chaired; I think we shall hear from him towards the end of this debate. We need a new mandate from Commonwealth leaders for trade and investment developments of all kinds, and that mandate is needed not to pave the way but to catch up with the amazing developments occurring at great speed. They open our own access to the expansion of vast new consumer markets where all the growth is going to be in the next 20 years, and address the needs of small and vulnerable states as well.
How good it would be to see this as a major legacy from the United Kingdom. We are just completing three years in office at the Commonwealth. It is all coming to an end. If we could bequeath this legacy and define it, how much this would also help to define our own national role and purpose at a time when old avenues have closed and a new era has begun. I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcoming me to the Front Bench; it is most gracious of him and is appreciated. His passion for the Commonwealth can be felt on this side of the Chamber and is to be respected and applauded.
This debate is an excellent opportunity to consider the complex challenges and multiple opportunities that we now face as a country in forming our own independent trading policy in the post-Brexit era. We have the chance to apply our own priorities and strike our own trade deals with our Commonwealth cousins. We therefore have a responsibility to make sure that those priorities reflect our values. Closer trade allows us to strengthen our modern relationships with those nations to which we are tied by history, common traditions and the shared sacrifice of two world wars.
Of course, when we contemplate preferential trade deals with our Commonwealth cousins, the exact same questions arise that we must answer for every other potential trade partner around the world. Labour will never agree a trade deal that is not in the interests of British industries’ workers or our NHS, but we have to ask ourselves some important questions. For instance, are we willing to give trade deals to countries that attack the human rights of their people, allow the exploitation of their workers and deny their citizens essential democratic and personal freedoms? Are we willing to give trade deals to countries whose export trade actively relies on deforestation and other practices that make it harder for us to achieve our own global climate goals? Are we willing to give trade deals to countries that allow farming practices that are illegal in the UK and whose agricultural corporations will therefore be able to undercut our domestic producers? The Government have yet to make clear where they stand in response to all these important questions.
I would like to use this opportunity to address the most urgent issue facing our Commonwealth of nations, one in which the rules and systems of trade play a vital part: the global production and distribution of Covid vaccine. As of 30 June, eight of the 54 Commonwealth countries had vaccinated more than half of their population with at least one dose, but at the other end of that list, 26 Commonwealth countries have vaccination rates below 7%. Of those 26 countries, 15 have full trade agreements in place with the UK, so it is not tariff barriers that are stopping those countries vaccinating their people—it is a lack of healthcare systems, money and, most fundamental of all, vaccines.
As noble Lords will know, the Labour Party has set out a comprehensive plan to address the global shortage in vaccine supplies, which must start with an agreement on the sharing of vaccine patents. But we also need a global plan to build, equip and supply production facilities in key locations all over the world, and a bespoke international trade treaty to manage the supply of raw materials and medical equipment to ensure the safe, efficient and equitable distribution of vaccine and to prevent the practice of hoarding and vaccine nationalism. We need that as a matter of urgency, before more mass outbreaks occur in the poorest countries and before new variants emerge to threaten the effectiveness of the vaccine we have.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that the speaking limit is three minutes.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will soon conclude.
We all share the objectives of deeper trade with the Commonwealth, but none of those objectives can be achieved while the majority of our fellow Commonwealth countries remain in the grip of this pandemic and while half of them have barely begun their vaccine programme.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, “Networks never sleep”—those are pragmatic words from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and they are particularly applicable to the Commonwealth. However, for self-serving reasons, the UK nevertheless turned its back on the Commonwealth in favour of the EU experiment. The consequences of that were drilled into me this week by a Commonwealth trading partner, who said this: “The Commonwealth is not now the defining organisation for many countries, as many have opted in the meanwhile to strengthen linkages with geopolitical proximity”. However, intra-Commonwealth trade is a key aspiration, particularly east-west. Nevertheless, this is a cautionary tale, which, when combined with the pending quandary by way of a referendum in Barbados, indicates that we must not take the Commonwealth for granted and must never forget the tribute, gratitude and legacy of Her Majesty.
Trade agreements with Commonwealth members, including Singapore, India, Australia, New Zealand and Commonwealth CPTPP members, provide opportunities for us to strengthen Commonwealth trade and assist in meeting targets to double intra-Commonwealth trade to $2 trillion by 2030. However, some suggest that the Government’s current approach is fragmented across departments and unclear about how Commonwealth trade priorities fit into DIT’s priorities. There is no mention, for example, of the $2 trillion goal in DIT messaging, or that Commonwealth FTAs should be underpinning that target and so enabling us to achieve that goal.
Four fundamental goals are being presented to Ministers at CHOGM, via the B2B cluster of the business policy forum for the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda, that could assist in this regard. Three are centred around digitalisation, given that the costs of trade transactions can be halved by reducing the reliance on paper-based systems and the need to redouble our efforts to digitise cross-border customs arrangements on trading goods. A focus on Covid eradication Commonwealth-wide is the fourth. Tackling Covid is the foundation stone to recovery for all; of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was spot on in that regard.
With all this in mind, as co-chair of the APPG for Trade and Export Promotion, and recognising the importance that parliamentarians in Westminster and around the Commonwealth be kept abreast, I have requested International Economics Ltd of Mauritius, an advisory operation to Governments on trade agreements, to create a trade insight dashboard on the UK’s trading arrangements since Brexit. UK trade agreements with the Commonwealth—as with all FTAs globally, wherever they be—will be analysed pre and post Brexit, with insights on the trade flows and sector and product-level market access conditions for Commonwealth firms on the UK market and UK firms in Commonwealth markets. Additionally, there will be analysis on the number of agreements, trade flows and tariff preferences under each and every agreement that will offer interactive summary analytics, serving as a comparator with pre and post-Brexit trade with the European Union.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I warmly applaud my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating this debate and for so constantly bringing our attention to the Commonwealth over many years. I think it would not be unreasonable to say that much of the energy and focus of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the past perhaps arose out of our membership of the European Union. While we of course want to have excellent relationships with our European neighbours, the long-standing and prescient call by my noble friend to embrace the Commonwealth clearly needs to be answered now, without hesitation. I also applaud the work of my noble friend Lord Marland, who chairs the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, the mandate of which is to promote trade and investment across the Commonwealth.
We should capitalise on the Commonwealth advantage. It is a gateway to trading with nations with whom we share legislative practices based on the rule of law, with whom we overwhelmingly share common ideals and values through the commercial charter, and which is strengthened by commercial links and the Commonwealth legal framework.
Each morning, I look at newspapers from across the channel. There is considerable debate, not always harmonious, about links between Francophone countries. Quite simply, our Commonwealth structure has no remote equal and is widely admired.
In the extensive list of countries with whom we have signed trade deals, digital connectivity and stimulating digital trade is at the heart of a number of these agreements. Thus, the Commonwealth is an area for this country to develop and share targeted digital commercial activity.
Young people abroad remain very attracted by our technological and cultural offer and our forms of soft power, often through the English language. I greatly welcome the changed visa regime, with students from the Commonwealth now able to study and work here much more freely.
There is one structural component of the Commonwealth architecture which begs for modernisation. I happen to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Algeria—the biggest country in Africa and, for over 50 years, a reliable supplier to us of liquified natural gas. As I have heard from their president’s lips, they would like to have associate or formal observer status with the Commonwealth. But there is no such status: it is either full membership or nothing. Does my noble friend agree with more flexible linkages to the organisation, which would undoubtedly enhance the Commonwealth’s reach and credibility? If he does, will he strongly take the message to our Government to work assiduously to achieve this? After all, our Prime Minister is currently chair-in-office. Surely the time to put real focus and energy into the Commonwealth has now arisen.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s intent to strengthen ties with the Commonwealth as we transition to our new reality outside the European Union. When we entered the European Common Market, we severed many tight economic ties with some of our Commonwealth partners. It is because of that that I am particularly pleased at the announcement of the economic partnership agreement with CARIFORUM, which covers many countries with whom we continue to share a head of state.
My diocese is linked with the Windward Islands, and we are glad to have a large community of Vincentians living in Luton. They have told me of the extraordinary economic disruption that occurred to them when we joined the EEC. Although many of these Commonwealth realm territories contained within the CARIFORUM agreement are small in GDP terms, there is a symbolic importance to this agreement, and I hope it will be a platform to further invest and engage culturally with these territories to strengthen our existing ties.
While any future agreements with Commonwealth countries have the potential to create prosperity, it is vital that this prosperity is truly mutual, delivers material improvements to the ordinary citizens of those countries and does not constitute the sort of extractive relations of the past. However, as we know, the Commonwealth is primarily an organisation that affirms our commitment to shared values—democracy, human rights and freedom of religion, to name a few—and it is important that future economic agreements promote these values. We cannot presume that free trade and market liberalisation alone will naturally deliver liberal and tolerant societies, and I hope that our continued engagement with the Commonwealth does not devolve into a quid pro quo economic relationship stemming from our need to sign trade agreements. We should not shy away from the fact that some Commonwealth members do not have the sort of record on our shared values that one might expect or hope. As part of the Government’s vision of global Britain, I hope that we will explore seriously the ways we can embed positive social consequences into trade deals and truly be that force for good in the world that the Foreign Secretary has spoken of so powerfully in the past.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too declare my interest as a former Commonwealth Minister, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating this debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
I start by wishing all of us well, here and in the Commonwealth, in our trade relationships. I do not think you could create the Commonwealth today; it is a unique organisation, and it has deepened its relationships with all its members in so many ways. I also want to say that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, is a very fine ambassador for trade.
But our optimism about it needs to be tempered by some realism, particularly as we want to see global developments in trade. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, used the term “geopolitical proximity”, and that is always a genuine issue. I just want to make the point that distances cannot be dismissed lightly. According to the Library briefing, the average distance by air from London of our top 10 trading nations in the Commonwealth is 9,601 kilometres. The average for the top 10 of our former EU partners is 1,020 kilometres—and that is by road, which means that the delivery of goods is significant. We are looking at 9.4 times the distances we have traditionally looked at. That is significant because our trade is largely in goods, not so much in services. We use shipping. We have seen that even one ship in the Suez Canal can create considerable difficulties. Most shipping is using bunker fuel and emitting huge amounts of sulphur into the atmosphere. These are all important factors we need to overcome.
The interconnectivity the noble Lord, Lord Howell, refers to is of course absolutely real, but it is universal. The interconnectivity is not just with the Commonwealth but with all other countries, none of which sleep in the world of this interconnectivity. But even interconnectivity is not unproblematic. It is a huge source of business, of course, but we know now that it is an even greater source of fraud—not insurmountable, but a real factor.
I just want to finish on the Covid point, which has been made so well by my noble friend Lady Chapman. It is a really serious matter. Forty-four million people in the Commonwealth have been infected—130,000 more each day. There have been 700,000 deaths, growing by 1% per day. Vaccines so far have got to about 1% of the population of Africa, and that really does mean that the people are suffering in all the ways we know about medically but also in their ability to construct and reconstruct and build their economies. If we have a serious approach to this, we will deal with it.
Finally, but not as an afterthought, I applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Risby, just said. When I was Minister for the Commonwealth, I also thought associate membership would be very important and that Algeria would be a prime candidate.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I am one of those most enthusiastic supporters of improving our trade links with countries of the British Commonwealth, particularly in the post-Brexit era. However, the compass of our trade initiatives should be set to advance the public’s benefit and to ensure that our trading partners respect the rights of all people and honour all commitments made with Britain and the international community. The Declaration of Commonwealth Principles agreed in Singapore in 1971 supports
“the liberty of the individual … equal rights for all citizens … and … their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes.”
The declaration endorses fostering “human dignity and equality” and “the principles of self-determination.”
India being the largest country in the Commonwealth, it makes sense to make our trade relations stronger with it. But when I match these values and principles with the conditions and treatment of Christians, Dalits, Muslims and Sikhs in India, I feel as though Britain is simply turning a blind eye to some of these terrible records of human rights abuses. The situation in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir is even more appalling, where, according to many international human rights organisations, including the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Indian army is involved in illegal detentions, torture, rape, fake encounters and extrajudicial killing. The UN has repeatedly asked for free access to investigate these reports of human rights abuses, but India continues to ignore them.
The Indian actions in Kashmir are clearly against the Commonwealth values and principles, the UN charter and the Geneva convention. In light of this, on behalf of over 1 million British Kashmiris, I ask the Minister: will our trade with India be linked with human rights? If India continues to violate the Commonwealth values and principles, what action will the British Government be prepared to take? Furthermore, what actions are the British Government taking to get India to give the United Nations the access it requires and to co-operate with the investigation of human rights abuses in Kashmir?
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I join all those who have thanked and congratulated my noble friend Lord Howell for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic. Since the first hint of Brexit, my noble friend has been consistent in advocating the opportunities and advantages we have in building on our special relationship with our Commonwealth cousins. I agree with everything he said, especially on the importance of educational links. It is certainly hardly surprising that the first non-rollover FTA we have entered into has been completed with Australia.
As many of your Lordships will know, I have a long-standing interest and involvement in Latin America as a region, and now my voluntary duties as a trade envoy also lie there. But Guyana in South America and Belize in central America are both Commonwealth members, and I hope and trust they will not be overlooked in any new trade deal. I should perhaps say, in this context, that my honourable friend Darren Henry, who is the trade envoy to the English-speaking Caribbean, also includes Guyana in his sphere of influence and is certainly working on this. We have already heard from my noble friend Lord Risby, and his observations from his long experience as a trade envoy were very interesting.
In my few minutes, I will raise a few issues and to ask the Minister for some points of clarification. The role of the British group of the CPA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, cannot be overestimated, especially in terms of the important work it does. As a former member of the executive council, I am well aware of the work it does in relation to the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth charter. As the excellent Library briefing puts it:
“These range from respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, through to promoting good governance, pursuing sustainable development and acknowledging the role civil society can play in communities”—
all very important values to be acknowledged in future trade deals.
On a second point, if we intend to move the centre of our trade efforts to the Commonwealth, what will be the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat based here in London? Will it be part of any consultation process? Will it or could it have a monitoring or regulatory role? Can my noble friend the Minister enlighten us on that?
Finally, perhaps I may be reassured that the overseas territories will not be forgotten and will be included as much as possible in any trade deals and dialogue on trade opportunities. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing this debate. I agree with him about the relevance of the modern Commonwealth, its potential and the importance of its non-governmental networks.
The benefits of trading with and within the Commonwealth are well documented, but this so-called Commonwealth advantage can be further harnessed by new technologies, especially digitisation. In recent years we have seen an increase in deliverable digital exports in services in upper and middle-income Commonwealth countries, but they have decreased in small and low-income Commonwealth states. The digital divide, digital penetration and skills in information management are real issues that need to be addressed in the Commonwealth if we are to realise the ambition of reaching the $2 trillion target by 2030, as agreed at CHOGM in 2018. Can the Minister tell the House what action the UK is taking to address this digital divide? Furthermore, what specific steps have been taken by the UK to improve the regulatory environment and supply chains?
In October 2019, the International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, when addressing the meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers said that the Commonwealth was one of the UK’s largest trading partners, worth over £100 billion in March 2019. Although the value of UK exports to the Commonwealth increased by 4% between 2018 and 2019, and the value of imports grew by 15%, the UK’s trade is with a very small number of Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The integrated review talked about seeking bespoke trade agreements with those countries, as well as India, and the UK has signed continuity agreements with South Africa, Mozambique and others mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. That progress is commendable, but does the Minister agree that the UK has a responsibility to the whole of the Commonwealth, particularly low-income states, and needs to ensure that disparities in areas such as digital penetration within the Commonwealth are mitigated? Again, in 2019, the International Trade Secretary stated that,
“the 53 member states of the Commonwealth have the unique ability to be able to lead the defence of free trade…showing the world a route to prosperity”.
Should we, therefore, not be working with the Commonwealth as a whole?
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab) [V]
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on securing this debate. We do not talk about the Commonwealth enough. It is often an afterthought and now that we are looking for trading partners, it is up there in our priorities.
The noble Lord mentioned leading Commonwealth figures, but did not mention one of our own number, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland of Asthal. I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who said that there is a real opportunity there for us as a Parliament as well as a Government to enter into much more of a dialogue on what is happening to the entire Commonwealth. We need much more to take into account the entire Commonwealth, where we often have a trade surplus.
In 2019, 69% of our trade with the Commonwealth was with India, Canada, Australia, Singapore and South Africa. The remaining 44 countries accounted for the remaining 31%. My noble friend Lady Chapman, in her excellent introduction to the debate from the Opposition Benches, talked about ways we could help some countries in the Commonwealth reform. That is something that various trade deals could bring about. Will the Minister tell the House where the Government stand on strengthening the unilateral preferences that they grant to developing Commonwealth countries for their mutual benefit? How do the cuts in overseas aid fit in with that?
The Government have said that they provide for duty-free, quota-free access for the least-developed countries and have put in place a preferential scheme for them. The Prime Minister himself has been clear about the relationship between development and trade. Is that not an area in which we can use the opportunities of trade to bring greater benefit and reform in some Commonwealth countries?
We have, too, to be genuine in looking at the opportunities in the developed countries. There is a great deal of talk in Australia about how well that country has done out of the negotiations with the United Kingdom, but we must take into account the problems that some of our farmers face. Therefore, we cannot be romantic about the nature of deals with the Commonwealth, which we have to look at in some detail. There is a concentration among the highly developed countries of the Commonwealth such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand that could seriously disadvantage the less-developed countries. If we want the Commonwealth to thrive, we have to think of the less-developed countries as well.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Hain, have all withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Howell for enabling this debate. It is most welcome. I am also pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke. She and I serve together on the International Agreements Committee. In that context, we have had the privilege of examining the continuity trade agreements—the rollover agreements—that have enabled us to transition agreements that we had previously with the European Union.
In my tally of the 53 other Commonwealth states, two are member states of the European Union, and with 28 of them we have now in place transition rollover agreements—or, as my noble friend said, sufficient bridging agreements. Many of them are literally rollover agreements with no continuity-plus provisions. I should say first that it is important that we make rapid progress with, for example, Canada, Ghana, Kenya and others in turning those continuity agreements into continuity-plus agreements. In addition, 17 countries are within the generalised scheme of preferences in its various frame- works, which leaves, for those who are calculating, six other countries, with three of which we have negotiations in train—New Zealand, Australia and Singapore. We will have trade relationships with two of those countries—Brunei and Malaysia—by virtue of our accession to CPTPP. The other country is, I think, the Maldives. Therefore, by my calculation, we will have trade relationships with Commonwealth countries, but the point is that we need to make those relationships stronger and fuller.
I wish to make three quick points. First, let us try to make sure that we include the environment in this. New Zealand has taken an initiative on climate change, trade and sustainability to have tariff-free environmental goods, to remove subsidies on fossil fuels and to promote eco-labelling. We could use the Commonwealth, which would be a great place to bring that initiative forward on a more global basis.
Secondly, many of our agreements focus on goods, but we have the capacity, as my noble friend Lord Risby said, to be strong in digital trade and, indeed, to be a services-sector superpower. We should extend many of those agreements into services on a major push to develop those relationships.
Thirdly and finally, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Marland. The Commonwealth should and can be a powerful instrument through which we promote enterprise and entrepreneurships and scale up businesses, particularly in developing countries. As a consequence, we will expand our trade to those countries dramatically, as well as their exports to us.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Commonwealth of 54 countries is a voluntary organisation of 2.4 billion people and GDP estimated at $3 trillion. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has said that it wants to increase trade between the Commonwealth countries to $2 trillion by 2030. This was at the CHOGM held in London in 2018. We, as the UK Government, are pursuing free trade agreements with Commonwealth partners. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is a true and constant champion of the Commonwealth. It makes up a third of the world’s population, 60% of Commonwealth citizens are under the age of 30 and it has recently celebrated its 70th anniversary.
As president of the CBI, I had the privilege of chairing the B7, which fed into the G7. One of our speakers was the impressive Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is the new head of the WTO and was head of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, before that—what serendipity. She highlighted that 17% of the world’s population is in Africa yet Africa has only 0.15% of the world’s vaccine-manufacturing capability. India, a country with a population equivalent to the whole African continent— 1.4 billion people—has the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, the Serum Institute of India, owned by my friend Cyrus Poonawalla. Two-thirds of children vaccinated have been vaccinated by the Serum Institute of India, and it has just announced it is increasing its AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine production from 100 million to 200 million doses a month.
Digital connectivity and enabling member nations to benefit from it was spoken about at CHOGM. At the B7, we thanked God for digitisation in this pandemic, yet the more digitisation we have the more vulnerable we are, so cybersecurity is something the Commonwealth has to work on.
A stark fact is this: trade with all 54 Commonwealth countries amounts to less than 10% of the UK’s trade. Five countries—Australia, Canada, India, Singapore and South Africa—accounted for almost three-quarters of this, yet the EU is 45% of our trade and the United States is 15%. We have heard about Liz Truss and her Department for International Trade and the fantastic job they have done rolling over 67 trade agreements with the EU. We are now making them bespoke. Canada is an example of one we have started to enhance.
George Brandis, the Australian high commissioner, recently spoke of the brand new Australian deal, which took just 365 days. That will be a stepping-stone for us, as Australia will be an ambassador for us entering the CPTPP, worth £110 billion to us. On top of that, we have New Zealand coming on and have announced an enhanced trade partnership with India, working towards a free trade agreement and an ambition to double our trade of £24 billion by 2030. The potential is enormous and we must make much more of the potential of the Commonwealth.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on initiating this debate. He has a distinguished role in being an enthusiast for the Commonwealth over many years. I, as a former chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, share his enthusiasm but am more sceptical about the prospects for a substantial increase in our trade with the Commonwealth.
I note that the Motion refers to “renewing”; surely we should guard against nostalgia with reality. Over the past 50 years, for example, our own UK trade patterns have altered substantially; similarly, the Commonwealth has changed and moved away from the UK. There are costs in any such agreement—such as those to Welsh lamb producers, and no doubt India will demand an increase in visas. The world has changed around us too, with the rise of China and concessionary finance to west African Commonwealth countries and others, which we probably cannot match. I note that New Zealand has blocked broadening Five Eyes to a more political role because of its reliance on China’s markets for its exports.
With all the problems and a relatively small scale, of course we should make progress with our Commonwealth partners where we can. I recognise the wonderful breadth of the Commonwealth connection mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I look forward to learning from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and the Minister about whether we will move from rhetoric to devoting more resources and personnel to promote our trade with the Commonwealth family. We will be ready to give technical assistance on trade matters to less-developed Commonwealth countries.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this timely debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell, both on securing the debate today and on his inspirational and interesting speech. He has long been the strongest advocate of the Commonwealth and the huge potential benefits it can offer all its members. Our 47-year dalliance with the EU has meant we have not pursued the valuable opportunities open to this unique association of 54 member states to make a great contribution to free trade, security and stability across the world.
It is good news that we have reached agreement in principle on a free trade deal with Australia. The lord mayor’s virtual visit to New Zealand in May showed great enthusiasm in that country for the progress being made towards a free trade agreement, with ambitious digital provisions.
India is another major Commonwealth country with which we are now moving to make up for lost time. The lord mayor’s virtual visit there in November 2020 provided a further boost to London’s fintech industry, which is now worth £6.6 billion to the UK economy and accounts for 76,000 jobs. UK-India collaboration is an important factor at the heart of the growth and continued success of the sector. Stephen Booth, head of the Britain in the World project at Policy Exchange, has also written about the positive results from the Prime Minister’s recent summit with Narendra Modi. Mr Modi coined the term “living bridge” to describe the deep connections between the two countries, in part deriving from the 1.6 million UK nationals of Indian descent.
The most exciting development in our new independent trade strategy is our application for accession to the CPTPP. It is notable that among the 11 member countries of partnership are six Commonwealth countries. Our application to the CPTPP provides hard evidence that we are serious about our tilt to the Indo-Pacific, as an important part of global Britain. I hope that other Commonwealth countries which share our commitment to free trade and the prosperity it generates may follow our example in joining the organisation. They may also consider that, against the background of the rise of China, membership offers geostrategic and security advantages.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, suggested that geographic distance acts as a barrier to trade in goods. I remind him that Ottawa is 16,000 kilometres from Canberra; both are members of the CPTPP. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, our new trade agreements have strong digital provisions and global Britain is as much about services as goods, leveraging London’s position as clear global leader, in spite of a failed attempt to sabotage international equities markets. Does the Minister agree that the sooner the UK completes—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I remind my noble friend of his 3 minutes?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
Yes, I will just finish.
—completes our accession negotiations, the better, both because Japan is providing strong support during its presidency, which lasts until the end of the year, and because the UK’s role in developing the modus operandi of the organisation will be maximised by our early involvement?
Ironically, particularly prior to the possible future return to the organisation of the US—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but I ask the noble Viscount to finish now, please.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
Can the Minister tell the House when he expects the accession negotiations to be completed?
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for facilitating this debate and declare my interest as a member of the Farmers Union of Wales. It is from the viewpoint of Welsh farmers, and in particular hill farmers, that I address the House on the Australian trade deal and its implications for the future of Commonwealth deals.
From our Brexit debates, noble Lords will be aware of the deep anxiety in our sheep sector, as 90% of our sheepmeat exports go to the EU. A no-deal Brexit would have imposed punitive tariffs on sheepmeat sold to Europe. Mercifully, the Brexit deal avoids that possibility for as long as it holds firm.
The vulnerability of our sheep sector comes to the fore in the context of the Australian trade deal. There is trepidation in the sector that the Australian beef and lamb entering the British market will make our products uncompetitive. Australian sheepmeat prices are 30% lower than UK prices. Australia’s largest beef exporter says that zero tariffs would increase Australian exports to Britain tenfold. In 2017 Australia exported to Britain some 20,000 tonnes of lamb, which under this deal will increase to 75,000 tonnes over 10 years, with similar increases in beef quotas.
The fear is that Australia will undercut Welsh farmers, for three reasons. The first is its huge economy of scale: its farms are 80 times larger than the family farms of Wales. The second is cut-price animal welfare, with live animals transported without food or water for 48 hours and sheep rear ends having flesh and skin cut off without anaesthetic. Thirdly, growth hormone treatment is permitted in Australian beef.
The Tory manifesto stated that the UK
“will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”,
but that is happening with the Australian trade deal. It is at odds with the Government’s professed green policies to ship animal carcasses half way around the world, with huge carbon footprints, when that meat can be grown here to higher standards.
On the basis of this deal, British exports to Australia will increase by 7% and Australian exports to Britain by 80%. That is a sell-out. Following Australia, New Zealand’s Meat Industry Association is now seeking an even better export deal to the UK. My fear is that this will set a pattern for other Commonwealth agreements.
Welsh farmers who voted Conservative 18 months ago are learning a bitter lesson. I am a great fan of the Commonwealth and hope only that the Australian trade deal experience is not seen as a negative reflection on future Commonwealth trade opportunities.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating this debate and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to her new role. She will probably find this place a bit more peaceful than where she came from, but I hope she enjoys it.
My connection with the Commonwealth goes back to the beginning of my working life, across the road with the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations, a body sponsored by the British Government. During the time I was working for it, its main aim was to enable the colonies to emerge into the Commonwealth. It did a pretty good job. We are dealing with probably the largest international voluntary organisation in the world. As with many voluntary organisations, it is a very disparate group of nations—some would say too disparate.
We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who made many points about why the Australian deal is not a good one. I tend to think it probably is quite a good one, because at heart I am a free trader. If you reduce tariffs, you generally improve people’s welfare. The argument about free trade has been a feature of British politics for at least 100 years.
I counsel us against romanticising about the Commonwealth. There is a tendency—particularly among those who were not, let us say, 100% in favour of the EU—to try to look back to a time that was quite different, when there was a Commonwealth but Australia and New Zealand basically fed Britain. That time has long gone and will not come back. The sheep miles referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are exactly what will stop it, because the market for Australian and New Zealand produce is now in the Far East and the Middle East. It is not in the United Kingdom and it is not going to be.
I see the future of the Commonwealth as a centre of soft power, an organisation that can give good advice, set standards, encourage good behaviour and, on occasions, assist other countries with limited amounts of money. It is not going to be a substitute for our aid budget or the international financial institutions we all subscribe to. Where it does have a future is as a centre of soft power, working with the British Council, the BBC and those other institutions that do so much to promote a good image of Britain and the Commonwealth in the world.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on initiating this debate. I know his commitment to the Commonwealth is genuine and of long standing. He would not use this debate as a shop window to boost Brexit’s so-called successes. I am not so sure about the current Government’s sincerity.
In the 1990s I attended a couple of CHOGMs in Zimbabwe and South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth TUC. Lord Hurd, who was the Foreign Office Minister, was fully in charge of his excellent briefings when he met the Commonwealth TUC, knowing which trade union leader in Africa was likely to be the next leader of his country. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is similarly well briefed. It would be good if he were to brief the current generation of Ministers on, for instance, the difference between Zimbabwe and Zambia. A junior Minister with the unfortunate name of Duddridge attended former President Kaunda’s funeral and appeared to be confused as to which country he was in, all in front of President Kenyatta of Kenya, President Ramaphosa of South Africa and President Lungu of Zambia.
Of course, these countries and the rest of the Commonwealth will have a healthy scepticism of the UK because of the way some of them were treated when we entered the then Common Market and the way we agreed a Brexit treaty and Northern Ireland protocol that contained inherent contradictions, then made the announcement in Parliament that the Government intended to break that treaty.
To rebuild that damaged reputation, we need future trade agreements to be comprehensive, transparent and to have the maximum involvement of Parliament. The deals should be linked to climate change and human rights and ensure that standards are maintained, particularly for agriculture, to protect our farming industries. How will we ensure standards when we do not have enough vets or inspectors? How will we uphold standards if our own farmers are undercut by cheap imports? How will the general public know the content of the food they are eating, so that they have a real choice?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and to associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, particularly on the question of animal welfare. The operation to which he referred is called mulesing and it is barbaric. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate and commend the call by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for the UK to get behind the New Zealand Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.
In my three minutes, I have three points to make. First, in 2018 CHOGM, in the Declaration on the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment, agreed to make trade more
“inclusive by encouraging the participation of women and youth in business activities, by taking a gender responsive approach to the development of trade policy, increasing opportunities for women to trade internationally, and breaking down gender barriers”.
What measures are the Government taking to promote that agenda? In the same year, the Commonwealth announced a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation. What is the UK doing to promote that?
My second issue is also about approaching trade through a fair-trade lens rather than a free-trade one, building on the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans. Given the global problem of the low levels of corporation tax being paid, we have heard in the last couple of days the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saying that the US will be pushing to raise the 15% floor agreed as a minimum corporation tax rate by 130 countries last week. One member of the Commonwealth that stands out here particularly is Mauritius, a middle-income country and in many ways a success story but also a tax haven that has allowed global companies to siphon millions of tax dollars away from low-income African nations, including other Commonwealth members. Are the Government going to seek to encourage the Commonwealth to be a positive actor for tax justice, stopping the parasitism of multinational companies that afflicts the whole world but particularly the world’s poorest nations?
Thirdly, on plastics, I draw the minister’s attention to an excellent international trade working paper entitled Plastic Production and Trade in Small States and SIDS: The Shift Towards a Circular Economy. It is a Commonwealth international trade working paper that talks about how plastics, mostly produced and consumed in the global north, are having huge negative impacts on ocean-based sectors and on small nations, including many Commonwealth members, in areas such as tourism and fisheries. The report says that there need to be coherent trade policies to ensure that those countries can protect themselves and be part of the solution rather than simply suffering from the problem. What are the Government doing to promote that agenda?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to make a small contribution to this debate. There has not been enough concentration on the fact that we have to follow the WTO rules. I do not know the details of the vast experience of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, which is different from mine, but I have to say that when I came up against the Crown Agents in the 1970s, I got the impression that they were basically there to facilitate British sales to Commonwealth countries; it was a form of exploitation, in a way.
My main point is that we do not have the resources to police a substantial increase in trade with the 54 countries of the Commonwealth. Let us take just three examples, all of which are very highly regulated: imports to the UK of children’s toys, electrical goods and food, particularly of animal origin. When we were a member of the EU, it employed hundreds of experts to visit overseas factories and processing plants as well as farms. That was in order to check on safety standards, the products, the chemicals used and the methods of manufacture. We have never had to do this for ourselves since 1973 and—the Lords European Union Committee raised this issue some years ago—we simply do not have the expertise, staff or resources to do this work, and neither do the individual British companies doing the importing. The regulations that we have made post Brexit make it clear that doing this checking is an onerous activity for the importers. We simply do not have the facilities or the staff to do it, and the result is that we are going to be vulnerable to unsafe children’s toys, unsafe electrical goods and unsafe food entering the UK. Criminals will exploit that because they will see a gap in the market.
The EU is not stupid. It will want to ensure that nothing that is unchecked or potentially unsafe, because we have not been doing the checks, will be allowed to be exported by the UK into the EU later on, so there are some serious problems there. This is not to attack or denigrate any Commonwealth countries, but the fact is that the UK does not have the facilities or the resources to cope with such a large, unplanned expansion of trade with the 54 countries.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Howell for securing this debate. If we are to realise our ambition of achieving $2 trillion-worth of trade within the Commonwealth by 2030, we must build and strengthen the institutions that will facilitate that trade. Today, the Commonwealth does not have a trade finance bank, a development finance institution or an investment guarantee agency. It should probably have all those things and much more, but what we have is the immediate opportunity to ensure that digital co-operation is a fundamental part of our trade deals with Commonwealth countries. We wrote an excellent digital trade chapter into the Japan deal that is a model to draw inspiration from.
Most of the Commonwealth is still offline. Only 27.8% of the population of Commonwealth countries have internet access. The opportunity to grow connectivity in digital trade is massive, but the disparity is significant: six Commonwealth countries make up 98.8% of the Commonwealth’s exports in high-technology goods. Tech workers across member states are keen to do business. On the freelance job website Upwork, there is an oversupply of tech workers from the Commonwealth, and on average only 6% find work.
It is not just about bilateral trade. The big prize is for member states to sell more digital products and services to each other. There are existing initiatives within the Commonwealth that we can build on. One of these is an organisation called COMSATS, a 26-country network, accredited by the Commonwealth and headquartered in Islamabad, which operates universities, engages in science diplomacy and runs innovation labs. It has built a powerful brand and demonstrates the impact that technology co-operation has in building good will.
Some 60% of the population of the Commonwealth are under the age of 29. We aim to be a world super- power in science and technology. The opportunity here is absolutely clear.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the principles of human rights, equality and tolerance expressed in the Commonwealth charter. Renewing trade with the Commonwealth has an important contribution to make in maintaining those values, thanks to the average 19% reduced costs for bilateral trade.
The Commonwealth is diverse. It incorporates some of the world’s richest nations and some of its poorest. A working paper from the Commonwealth Secretariat shows that this will inevitably mean that, as our trade increases with the better-off members such as Australia, the poorer Commonwealth countries will lose trade and suffer a decline in GDP. The Government have promised a scheme to help the less-developed members to overcome that with duty-free or quota-free arrangements. Is that in place?
The pandemic and resulting economic slowdown will put a strain on Commonwealth trade. That will require special efforts in healthcare and biotechnology, as my noble friend Lady Chapman explained. As more business goes online, so digital technology and connectivity will be important, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others have told us. As the Prime Minister is the current chair-in-office of the Commonwealth, are we focusing on the connectivity section of the Commonwealth leaders’ agreement of 2018?
Some of the smaller, less-developed Commonwealth countries have enjoyed selling products such as textiles and clothing to the EU and Britain at zero tariffs under the most favoured nation arrangement. Presumably, that will continue. Surely the Commonwealth Secretariat should undertake an analysis of that trade to see if it can be developed.
At a time when, as others have put it, we are waking up to the legacy of our colonial history, we must ensure that it is not used to damage Commonwealth trade by undermining the shared values mentioned by my noble friend Lady Chapman, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others.
In spite of many speakers’ enthusiasm, renewing trade with the Commonwealth will provide only a minor boost to our economy. Surely our priority must be to find ways to boost productivity and innovation here, to equip workers with the necessary skills and, as my noble friend Lord Triesman said, to build bridges with our nearest and largest market.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we should guard against sentimentality. It is a particular temptation when discussing this association of nations to which we are bound by language, law, culture, kinship, history and habit. It is almost impossible if you are in this country not to be slightly misty-eyed when we think of the two great global conflagrations of the 20th century and of the millions of young men who rushed from every corner of the Commonwealth and Empire to take up arms, in many cases for a country on which they had never set eyes, because they believed in our shared values.
Yet, as my noble friend Lord Howell says—correctly and wisely quoting Her Majesty the Queen—the Commonwealth is the face of the future. The case for it is not nostalgic or sentimental. At some point in this decade, the Commonwealth’s GDP will overtake that of the European Union. We live in an age when geographical proximity has never mattered less. In the 1950s, it may have made sense to form regional trade blocs, but many of those arguments were broken down by advances in containerisation, travel and the internet, and have been accelerated by our experience in the past 15 months in lockdown. We are now all much more accustomed to having sensitive commercial conversations over Zoom and Teams, so the case for cultural proximity rather than accident of geography has never been more eloquent.
There is one other form of nostalgia that I have heard in this debate. Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot help feeling that, as with all our global trade deals, some noble Lords are still a little bit resentful about our withdrawal from the European Union and are looking for pegs on which to hang their opposition. We heard a little bit of it from the Front Bench—perhaps we will hear some more from the Front Bench spokesmen who will close this debate—when noble Lords talked about the importance of not trading with countries that do not meet our food production standards. There has been one major divergence post Brexit between British and EU food production standards: the decision recently announced by the EU to allow some animals to be fed on bits of other animals. We can argue about whether that was a good thing but clearly those noble Lords who have been arguing—and perhaps are planning to argue again today—that we should not trade with countries that have lower food production standards than ours must therefore be prepared to argue that we should not have a trade deal with the European Union. I hope that they will not erect barriers vis-à-vis the rest of the world that they would not erect against Brussels.
Let me close by saying that the Commonwealth is not just a voluntary association. By virtue of being voluntary, it brings out the best in all its members. It encourages us all to live our best lives and any strengthening of the Commonwealth must therefore be reckoned a net augmentation of human happiness.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I know from both Houses of Parliament that he has a long-standing interest in the Commonwealth and international trade. Indeed, I remember serving under his chairmanship on what was then the UK-Japan 2000 initiative and the work he did in strengthening our partnership with that country.
I share the ambition of strengthening our trading relationship with the Commonwealth but, like others—including my noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I warmly welcome to her new role—I stress that the Commonwealth is also about much more: shared values, an evolving friendship of equal partners and a willingness to co-operate on many levels.
At this stage in the debate, with so many points made, all I can do is take up some of them that I am particularly keen to see the Minister address in his reply. I hope that the Government will reflect on the powerful points made by my noble friend Lord Grantchester about human rights in our recent debate on the Cameroon trade agreement. Cameroon is out of step with the Commonwealth on so many issues and has been for a long time, not just in the recent and alarming attacks in anglophone areas.
In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out some of the problems that the Government’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU poses for trade with third countries, including Commonwealth ones, arising from the rules agreed on diagonal cumulation and rules of origin. In that debate, the Minister said that he would write to the noble Lord on that point. In view of the importance of the issue, I wonder whether the Minister’s letter could be circulated to all Members.
In the Library briefing for this debate, reference was made to the Commonwealth Secretariat producing a paper showing that some of the benefits of our agreements with Australia, Canada and so forth might impact negatively on some of the poorest countries of the Commonwealth. My noble friend Lord Haskel mentioned this; I wonder whether the Minister can respond to that point.
The Library paper also made this point:
“The Commonwealth accounted for 9.1% of the UK’s total trade in 2019, around the same as the UK’s total trade with Germany.”
To me, this means that we must be realistic about the short term. Aspirations for global trade and looking for opportunities cannot mean neglecting the biggest market on our doorstep or failing to tackle the problems that have reduced our European trade since Brexit and which are causing so many difficulties, particularly for small businesses and the food and drink sector.
Finally, what part does the environment play in the Government’s thinking on these issues? Geographical proximity matters in terms of reducing unnecessary air miles and sea-polluting journeys. Will the Minister comment on that in his reply?
Lord Marland (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell, who has been nothing but a champion of the Commonwealth for so long and a huge support for me and my organisation. I am also flattered by the words of my noble friends Lord Risby and Lord Lansley.
I chair the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. I also declare my interest as a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council was set up by the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth. It is a not-for-profit membership organisation. It is commercial and promotes trade and business within the Commonwealth. Since I have been chairman for the past seven years, it has opened hubs or offices in 10 or more countries, including Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Malta, the Caribbean, Nigeria, Ghana and Gibraltar, as well as in Bangalore three weeks ago. Our prize office is in the City of London, which has been tireless in its support for the council.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the council has an excellent female chief executive and a diverse board, and promotes diversity within business in the Commonwealth. Last week, we hosted a webinar, led by Lewis Pugh, who is swimming the oceans as UN ambassador for the oceans, to draw to attention plastics in the ocean. We have kept the flame alive in the past 12 months in these difficult times. In fact, our membership has grown through the webinars and Zooms that we have carried out; the last one had 850 people attending.
I regret that the UK Government have not taken up with gusto the opportunity of the Commonwealth advantage during their chair in office, being paralysed in a Brexit or post-Brexit Britain and worried, I suspect, by the dreadful word “imperialism”. That could not be further from the truth. Imperialism does not really exist in the minds of most Commonwealth people any more. Of course, modern imperialism is preaching to democratic countries and their elected leaders about what we think are the right or wrong ways to run their country; the words “glass houses” and “stones” spring to mind. It is through this imperialism that many of the Commonwealth countries have walked into the open arms of China so, if that is what we are trying to do, we should be looking at it in a different manner. It is quite clear that the promotion of free trade, for which Britain is a fantastic advocate, is the route out of poverty and may well be the route to helping these emerging markets to understand some of the concerns raised by noble Lords in relation to human rights and other practices, as well as to climate change issues, which we take very seriously.
Half the top 20 emerging countries in the world are Commonwealth countries. Do the Government not owe it to Her Majesty the Queen and her son, the Prince of Wales, who will take over from her, who have led the Commonwealth with exemplary leadership, holding this diverse group together, to support it in a far greater way than they have done? After all, the Commonwealth has the English language, a similar rule of law and shared interests, as has been mentioned by noble Lords—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the three-minute limit.
Lord Marland (Con) [V]
It also has education, sport, friendship and the 16% Commonwealth advantage. Believe me, the Commonwealth brand is still strong.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to commend his work and that of the council. As he rightly said, the strength of the Commonwealth offering is one which, if we see the current trajectory both continue and accelerate, will be to the United Kingdom’s trading and international benefit. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing this debate to us; it is a very timely debate. He speaks with great wisdom on this issue, as has been recognised across all Benches, and his wisdom is based on experience, but it is relentlessly forward-looking and challenging. That has set the framework for this debate, which other noble Lords have followed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I think, wanted to write some of my speech for me. I do not know, but I might be disappointing him by saying that I agree with him entirely about not being nostalgic for something that we left last year or something that some noble Lords have said we turned our back on 50 years ago. International trade does not like nostalgia anyway because—as he said, and I agree, and as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated—trade today in the 21st century is markedly different and, indeed, more complex. It touches on much wider areas, including standards, supply chains, human development and other areas. Of course, with e-commerce we are trading in manners and ways that our predecessors in trade would never have imagined possible. The Commonwealth is a network that is forward-looking.
Some have described the Commonwealth as a hub-and-spoke model, but in many respects it is a blockchain; it is a model of networks. When I co-chaired, with the Nigerian Trade Minister, an inquiry for the All-Party Group on Trade out of Poverty, one of our witnesses said something that has really stuck with me since then. She said that there were two major benefits to the Commonwealth: one was that America was not a member and the second was that neither was China. A network of commonality and consensus, which has values at its heart—even though we recognise that sometimes these have been challenging and challenged—nevertheless provides a very good basis for growth.
One of the reasons why we should not be nostalgic is that the trading world that the UK operated in before we joined the European Union was already changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated in respect of our free trade agreements, it is, perhaps, an odd quirk, but probably deliberate, that we are now a party to more free trade agreements with wider and deeper benefits with more Commonwealth countries because we were a member of the European Union, which had entered into agreements with those countries. Now we are seeing the successor of them, and our challenge is how to develop and grow them—but not necessarily simply to view the world within a simple tariff-preference scheme that existed within the Commonwealth Preference Area.
It is perhaps little recognised or remembered that the Commonwealth Preference Area was not necessarily reciprocal. For example, the Commonwealth Preference Area for Ghana and Kenya was unilateral for the United Kingdom, but not reciprocal for them. For the first time, therefore, we entered into free trade agreements with Ghana and Kenya through the European Union and now we have the continuity. Our debates will be on how we can develop that further. As noble Lords have indicated, with Australia and Canada now being negotiated, how can we look at our future trade agreements post European Union with our Commonwealth partners to take advantage of the Commonwealth advantage? The Commonwealth advantage includes the direct inflows of investment as well as goods and services.
It is interesting to me to note that the Commonwealth represents 14% of global GDP but 28% of global FDI flows. Most of that grew rapidly through London and our being part of the single market, and one of the challenges that we will be entering into now is what our trading partners in the Commonwealth will see as the UK’s position through the City of London and how the FDI flows will continue to develop.
As has been indicated in the debate, intra-Commonwealth trade has doubled in little over five years. Growth potential post pandemic is even higher, as we have now surpassed more than $1 trillion and have an ambition to meet $2 trillion. The group that I had the pleasure of co-chairing had started to look systematically at what the barriers were that could potentially mean that that growth would not happen. We also argued for a step change in activity, and I will touch on some of the key areas.
We also wanted to link in human development. It is a reality with the global goals—and all of the Commonwealth countries signed up to the global goals—that we share an ambition, especially in goals 4 and 8, to seek poverty eradication in human development. It is a fact that, within the Commonwealth, 440 million women, men and children live below the poverty line of $1.90 a day. If you are born in the Commonwealth, you are twice as likely to live a life of extreme poverty as if you were not born in the Commonwealth. Trade and development are therefore critical. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, highlighted—and I too welcome her to her position—the disparity in vaccine availability is an illustrator of this, and I agree with her. Uganda paid three times as much for AstraZeneca vaccines as the United Kingdom. Both are supposedly at cost, but the reality is that for many countries the costs are significantly higher. Two-thirds of the world’s small states, with populations of less than 1.5 million, are members of the Commonwealth, with very limited capacity to see trade facilitation and expansion. Therefore, the larger and more developed Commonwealth countries also have a responsibility for very close partnership working.
The first area that we considered to overcome was reducing costs and risks in trade and investment. E-commerce, for example, is one of the key areas where there is opportunity, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who outlined—so I do not need to—the disparity in connectivity within the Commonwealth. This also links, as he mentioned, with the youth profile. Of the 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth, 1 billion are under 25 and 60% are under 30. This presents huge challenges but also a massive opportunity, because 44% of the world’s entrepreneurs are aged between 18 and 35. Many non-tariff barriers exist for them, such as limited access to finance and capital assets, limited business networks, limited market information, and limited trade support.
When we develop that, and look at young women, we know that in Kenya, for example, 24% of SMEs are owned by women, and in Rwanda it is 26%. Most Commonwealth countries still have legislative and structural barriers to women entering the economic marketplace—on public procurement, on legal reform, on supply chain assets and access to finance. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, indicated, have provided model laws on e-commerce and reforms. These are all positive and we should be doing our own work to support those, SheTrades initiatives and others, so we can make sure that the majority of the population —that is, women—are economically active.
The other areas focused on strengthening partnerships —building them through the diaspora, in particular—and the absolute benefit we have with commonality in our legal frameworks, our regulatory frameworks and, broadly, our standards. Yes, there are differences which we will need to resolve, but all have a degree of commonality that provides an excellent platform.
Where could we go forward? As the noble Lord, Lord Marland, indicated, the UK has a real opportunity now with the extended chair in office. The group I co-chaired called for a new Commonwealth trade and investment mandate, and for the UK to bring its convening power to the Commonwealth convening power, so that it can set an agenda at the WTO and other rule-making bodies, which the Commonwealth is not and should not necessarily be. Nevertheless, a new mandate with co-ordinated and strategic Trade Ministers looking systematically at intra-Commonwealth trade barriers will be a benefit to the United Kingdom. Leading up to the next CHOGM, I hope the UK will seize this opportunity and play a significant role in allowing intra-Commonwealth trade to develop. This will benefit the UK and set us on a trajectory so that, at the end of the decade, we will have $2 trillion and the UK can look forward and absolutely not be nostalgic.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the Commonwealth is an important institution. While it might reflect on its upbringing from the past, it nevertheless has a continuing relevance and impact. It is a voluntary association of 54 countries, with almost a third of the world’s population, and stretches all around the globe.
It has been a very interesting debate this afternoon and I am grateful that so many notable contributions have been made today. These include that of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, the present chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. I am grateful to him and many others with notable Commonwealth experience, and experience elsewhere as envoys or representatives of trade. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, president of the CBI, works with India; the noble Lord, Lord Risby, with Algeria; the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, through the CPA; my noble friend Lord Triesman was Minister for the Commonwealth; my noble friend Lady Liddell, was high commissioner to Australia; and my noble friend Lady Donaghy also has experience. For the first time, we are to be responded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, while the International Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, is busy overseas on a trade mission. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing the debate and for initiating discussion on trade matters, particularly in relation to the Commonwealth. It is an opportune moment to recognise the Commonwealth’s potential to bring opportunity and benefits, such as the vaccines, spoken about by my colleague and noble friend Lady Chapman.
Now that the UK has left the EU, it can strike wider agreements independently of the EU and must refamiliarise itself with this responsibility, undertaking meaningful dialogue with industry, communities and Parliament in the process. It is regrettable that the Government continue to approach trade agreements as an executive role of prerogative, relying on the outdated CRaG process that governed agreements while the UK was an EU member state. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his remarks as a member of your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee. He has often spoken about, and stressed the need for, a more meaningful process of scrutiny through the parliamentary approval process.
Let me be quite clear: on this side, we are in favour of good trade. We want good trade deals that grow the economy, bring greater wealth to nations, stimulate enterprise and sectors, protect livelihoods and standards, and reflect the modern approach to trade that goes wider than mere economic exchange: free trade, yes, but with a purpose. If that can be achieved through agreements with Commonwealth countries via proper parliamentary scrutiny, we welcome that. If they are bad agreements, we will say so. That does not mean we are against trade, just as it has nothing to do with Brexit or nostalgia. It means it is a bad deal—as simple as that. We want the UK to do better: to have better agreements, and ones that benefit all sectors of the economy.
The Commonwealth continued to trade, and will continue to trade, with the UK as we seek new wider agreements in this new environment. The UK and the Commonwealth have the distinct advantages of a long association, cultural ties and shared values. The Government must take account of that and build more progressive agreements. That does not mean signing up to any agreement. From the signs of this Government’s record so far, Ministers appear not to have the same approach. There does not seem to be any strategic policy; it appears to be trade at any cost. Let us consider the recently announced agreement in principle with Australia, a Commonwealth country, and the first deal struck after securing the continuation of trade agreements from EU membership. Instead of using this opportunity to create jobs in every sector, drive up economic recovery and raise standards around the world, the Government have done the opposite. This agreement in principle gives Australia all and more than it wants—indeed, all it could ask for—with potentially devastating impacts on UK food producers and their industry. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is quite correct to draw attention to this in his remarks concerning Welsh lamb producers.
It remains to be seen what the Trade and Agriculture Commission will make of it as, following concessions in the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act, its recommendations are awaited and it has not even been constituted as a statutory body yet. The Government have yet to respond to the report from the previous TAC. Has the deal undergone the proper, considered scrutiny before agreement?
This deal sets a worrying precedent for the UK but a potential bonanza for other Commonwealth countries, such as India, New Zealand and Canada. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is concerned about the effects on the remaining Commonwealth nations. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s remarks in that respect. Furthermore, what will be the cumulative effect in the UK, when countries such as America and Brazil, outside the Commonwealth, join in with similar deals?
Another important aspect of international trade is its effect on the progress of human rights. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who spoke forcefully on this aspect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and my noble friend Lady Quin. The Government have repeatedly said that they were involved with international forums, including the Commonwealth, to promote human rights, but in rollover deals and deals in progress, the UK’s approach has been marred by inconsistencies. In your Lordships’ House Ministers have repeatedly said:
“Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.”
The Government argued forcefully against my noble friend Lord Collins’s human rights amendment to the Trade Act. They argued against the genocide amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. They argued again against the Motion to Regret on the Cameroon agreement. In Cameroon, another Commonwealth country, the Government there have committed widespread abuses of the English-speaking population since 2017. Yet the Government rolled over this EU agreement, without allowing a proper debate to take place in the Commons.
The Government have also announced the Australia deal as a necessary precursor to agreeing the exact deal known as a CPTPP, which includes five Commonwealth countries. There is not one clause that the Government will seek any exemption from or amendment to. Compare that passive approach to a fellow Commonwealth country’s approach. New Zealand ratified this partnership agreement in 2018 but was prepared not to unless it was exempted from the provisions of the investor-state dispute settlement. Why, with concerns over ISDS, did the Government not also demand exemption? Why are the Government not using the accession process to press for improvements to the current provisions on financial services, small businesses and mutual recognition of qualifications? Why are the Government not arguing for new chapters to cover educational aspects, exports, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and co-operation on new technology? Many speakers this afternoon have high- lighted the importance of the digital economy and the benefits of digital connectivity.
The Government need to stop this headlong rush into poor agreements. They need to consider carefully, when in negotiation with Commonwealth countries or other international partners, what the implications of these deals are. The words of my noble friend Lord Rooker, with his experience in necessary inspections and checks, need to be heeded. The Government need to reflect on contradictions such as professing to uphold standards yet refusing to legislate for them.
We support the pursuit of good trade deals: ones that stand up for British interests, British jobs, British industries and enterprises, and British cultural values. Yes, trade can be a force for good, but it can also lead to disaster—to the export of good British industries, and to the diminution of Britain’s ability to bring greater progress to the world and its own reputation within it. The Minister’s actions so far are falling well short of this task.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for initiating this debate and for his excellent opening speech. I know that this is a subject on which my noble friend is a considerable expert, as a former Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a former president of the Royal Commonwealth Society. I believe that he has served in three Governments, going back to the Heath Government, then the Thatcher and Cameron Governments. His really is quite a record, and therefore his contributions are greatly welcomed around the house. His views today on the Commonwealth and its future were a most valuable tour d’horizon.
I also know that the current chair of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Dr Linda Yueh, is one of the advisers to the Board of Trade. I trust that this will reassure my noble friend and others that this Government are taking concerns about the Commonwealth to heart. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that we need to raise the profile of the Commonwealth more. I hope that this debate will be helpful to that end.
My noble friend Lord Grimstone is, unfortunately, unable to conclude this important debate because he is currently overseas, fulfilling his ministerial duties to further UK trade and investment. I am afraid that, in this place today, your Lordships have his trade department aide-de-camp.
Our enduring ties with the Commonwealth countries spring from friendship, history, culture and sport. In just a year’s time, Birmingham will host the Commonwealth Games. No noble Lord has mentioned this, but I do so now: that unique global sporting event, often referred to as the friendly games, that brings the peoples of the Commonwealth together like no other. My noble friend Lord Sarfraz put it rather well when he said that trade deals are a vision of an interconnected future.
As head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty the Queen is hugely respected and during her remarkable reign she has undertaken more than 200 visits across the Commonwealth, to nearly every member country, to cement those bonds of friendship. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, reminded us that we must never forget her legacy and he is absolutely right. Her Majesty was also raised by my noble friend Lord Hannan during his speech. My noble friend Lord Marland spoke of the role of the Royal Family—I think it has a very important role—and quoted Her Majesty as saying that the Commonwealth is the face of the future, and of course I thoroughly agree.
From Mumbai to Melbourne, Calgary to Kuala Lumpur and Birmingham to Brunei, the 2.5 billion people living in the 54 Commonwealth states offer huge trade opportunities for British businesses from all sectors and of all sizes, across all regions of the United Kingdom. This provides a strong platform for prioritising trade-led growth with countries that account for well over a third of the world’s population, and have the potential to produce more than a quarter of global GDP by the middle of this century.
My noble friend Lord Risby asked whether we should capitalise on the Commonwealth advantage. I note that my noble friend Lord Marland also raised this; while I am on my feet, I thank him for his role as chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, as others have done. The Commonwealth advantage is the observation that trading between Commonwealth countries is estimated to be 19% easier. Trade is dictated by not just geography but shared history, as I said earlier, and language matters enormously. This is why all Commonwealth members want to see intra-Commonwealth trade and investment raised to $2 trillion.
In 2018, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting hosted by the UK in London, leaders adopted the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment, with the ambition of enhancing co-operation. As your Lordships will be aware, and as raised this afternoon, we had hoped to have a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda last month. This, sadly, had to be postponed for a second time due to the continuing global impact of Covid-19, but we look forward to the Rwandan Government and the Commonwealth Secretariat being able to reschedule it. I am afraid that I am unable to give any dates to that effect this afternoon.
CHOGM is an opportunity for Commonwealth Governments to reaffirm their ambitions and shared vision of trade. In 2018, Commonwealth leaders used the CHOGM to underline the importance of resisting protectionism and reaffirmed their commitment to free trade. From such a large and varied group of countries, this is an important message for the world to hear. Free trade helped to build Britain. It created jobs, businesses and entire industries, bringing wealth and prosperity to the UK and transforming the country into an economic powerhouse. It is free and fair trade that has helped reduce poverty on a scale unprecedented in human history, and that will help our country bounce back from the coronavirus pandemic and realise the ambitions of global Britain.
I take this opportunity to turn to the subject of vaccines and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, to her seat. She is most welcome to this House and to her Front-Bench role. The matter of vaccines was also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lords, Lord Triesman, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Purvis. It is an important matter, and the UK is committed to rapid and equitable access to safe and effective vaccines. As part of the G7, we have undertaken to share 100 million doses, and 80% of our doses go to COVAX. As noble Lords will know, COVAX is the multilateral mechanism and it has so far helped to deliver 95 million doses to 134 countries, including 31 Commonwealth countries. Decisions on sharing vaccines will be based on the continued reliability of supply chains, which was mentioned in this debate, and advice from the JCVI.
However, today free and fair trade and the global trading system which supports it are under attack from the increased use of non-market policies and practices. This distorts competition and reduces fairness and trust in the system, as emphasised in the most recent G7 communiqué. Yet there can be few things more important than championing free and fair trade, as rooted in our values of sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law and a fierce commitment to high standards.
The title of this debate refers to renewing trading relationships, but I might argue that it is more of a reboot of those relationships. Today, as we chart a new course for ourselves as an independent trading nation, our determination to deepen the economic bonds we share with the Commonwealth is stronger than ever before. While we were an EU member, we successfully pushed for EU trade agreements with Common- wealth countries. Consequently, out of the 53 other Commonwealth members, 29 have trade agreements that were part of our Government’s efforts to secure trade continuity. I will need to check with Hansard to see whether these numbers correspond with those mentioned in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lansley.
For example, while we have already secured a trade continuity agreement with Canada, we have also set out a clear path to begin negotiating a new and more ambitious trade deal there. Furthermore, we have announced the launch of negotiations on a UK-Singapore digital economy agreement, which will build on the momentum of the UK-Singapore free trade agreement to address new and emerging issues in the fast-growing digital economy. I will touch upon this theme a little later.
We know that trade is a key driver of economic growth, which can help raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. It is therefore excellent news that we have secured development-focused FTAs, known as economic partnership agreements, with 27 Commonwealth countries. These agreements provide immediate tariff-free access to the UK market and, in return, these countries gradually liberalise their markets, with protections for certain sensitive sectors. This encourages export-led growth, supporting and creating jobs in these countries. Of course, this also creates opportunities for the UK, and through these agreements our trade with Commonwealth countries can and will continue to flourish.
Our current focus is on implementing these trade agreements to their full extent, but this is not the limit of the Government’s ambition. In the future, we will look at how we can improve upon these trade arrangements. I hope that helps answer a question from my noble friend Lord Lansley, who asked how we were going to deepen these. This would be to our mutual advantage, through close discussion with our partner countries in the Commonwealth.
In addition to our development-focused agreements, a further 16 Commonwealth countries benefit from unilateral liberalisation by the UK because of their status as least-developed countries or lower or middle-income countries. This scheme reduces or removes tariffs to goods imported to the UK.
Although less so today, there have been some voices who call for a Commonwealth-wide trade agreement; in other words, to effect the Commonwealth into a trade bloc like the EU. While I can understand this temptation, we need to remember that such a proposal would not simply be about easing trade between Commonwealth members and the UK but between all Commonwealth members with each other. That would be an enormous undertaking, beset with numerous practical difficulties for members with a wide spectrum of views and interests. It would also be a new departure for the Commonwealth, which has typically been a forum for discussion, technical assistance and sharing best practice. But if the aim of those who call for a Commonwealth trade agreement is to improve UK trade relations with our fellow Commonwealth members, they should look at the Government’s record on negotiating trade agreements. We are committed to working with our friends and allies in the Commonwealth to remove barriers to trade, and we are using our unilateral schemes and trade negotiations to do just that.
I want to touch on taking our trade agenda to the next level. Building on our success so far, we will put the UK at the centre of a network of modern deals, encompassing many Commonwealth nations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned, on 14 June, we reached agreement in principle for a deal with Australia, and negotiations are currently ongoing with New Zealand. These deals will create significant benefits for the whole of the UK. I will touch upon the Australia deal later in my speech.
We will shortly begin negotiations to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—so-called CPTPP, if I can pronounce that correctly—which includes six Commonwealth countries. We have also launched a consultation on a UK-India free trade agreement. This has been opened, as well as a call for input on a future agreement with Canada. I hope this answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, on how we are stepping up, as we should do.
In line with commitments made in the integrated review, the UK will be announcing the launch of a public consultation on its unilateral preferences scheme in the coming weeks. The Government will be keen to hear from stakeholders in the UK and overseas on how we can make our scheme even better.
I would now like to touch on a number of themes that were raised during this afternoon’s debate. One thing that came across loud and clear was the question of human rights, which was raised initially, I believe, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and also touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, my noble friend Lady Hooper, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Hussain —particularly in respect to Kashmir. They were all important speeches.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will forgive me, because I will be repeating some of the lines that he was repeating from what we have said. It is true that we are clear that more trade does not come at the expense of labour, environmental rights, human rights, or sustainable development. We want to ensure that economic growth, development and environmental protection go hand in hand. As an independent nation in control of our trading future, we will work with partners to support freedom, human rights and the environment, while boosting enterprise by lowering barriers to trade.
To take this theme further and to get into some detail, let me address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who spoke in particular about Cameroon. The Government remain deeply concerned about the north-west and south-west crisis. We will continue to monitor the situation and raise our concerns directly with the Cameroonian Government and within multi-national fora, calling for inclusive dialogue and an end to the violence. Beneficial growth and support for democratic principles are not mutually exclusive. By encouraging trade we are helping those most in need, providing valuable employment and, as I said earlier, helping to lift people out of poverty.
Another theme raised quite rightly by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lord Risby, concerned the importance of promoting digital trade and the question of digital interconnectivity within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has members at all stages of development, as the House will know. The digital divide is a key issue that the Commonwealth faces. As part of the Commonwealth connectivity agenda, several connectivity clusters were established, including a digital cluster, which the UK co-leads with South Africa. This provides an opportunity for members to explore these vital issues and learn from each other’s experience.
I would now like to move on to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Australia deal, with a focus on the concerns that Welsh farmers might feel. Some Peers have mentioned in support of the deal that the Australia deal is the first we have negotiated from scratch and it has a number of non-regression clauses in it. UK farmers are the best in the world—and that includes Welsh ones—and the Government are confident in their ability to adapt and prosper as global demand for high-quality sustainable food grows. We believe that a deal with Australia paves the way to membership of the CPTTP and the growing middle-class markets of the Pacific Rim. Those markets are already Australia’s focus, and it is unrealistic to think that large volumes of beef and sheep will be diverted to the UK from those lucrative nearby markets. In 2020, more than 75% of Australian beef exports and more than 70% of sheepmeat were imported to Asia-Pacific markets, where the cost of beef production can be twice as high as the UK in some markets.
We know that British customers have a preference for buying British, with Aldi, Budgens, the Co-op, Lidl, M&S, Morrisons and Waitrose all using 100% British beef. We expect any Australian imports to first displace EU production, the origin of 230,000 tonnes of our beef imports. The quotas and safeguards the Australians have set out provide protection and the ability to apply tariffs for the next 15 years, should volumes exceed specified triggers. I hope this gives some reassurance to concerns raised by noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Hooper asked what the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat is. The secretariat supports members and this organisation is voluntary and member driven. On trade, the secretariat monitors how intra-Commonwealth trade is developing. This was expected at CHOGM this year, but we now expect the secretariat to publish its trade monitoring report this summer.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked how we can deepen our goods continuity agreements with services chapters. This is a fair question, because services make up a growing share of global output and employment and now account for around half of global trade on a value-added basis. As the UK is a leading services economy, this has an important role to play in promoting services liberalisation worldwide, while helping to tackle the specific constraints holding back developing countries’ growth in this particular area.
I am nearly at my conclusion, but I would like to just refer to my noble friend Lord Howell. He spoke on a theme that was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, relating to the networks of the Commonwealth and what matters. It links also to the importance of the WTO. I would like to say something about the WTO and its new director-general, because we agree that Commonwealth networks are vitally important and reflect the shared history and values that underpin both the Commonwealth itself and the real business links that trade is built on. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also noted, the new director-general of the WTO is a Nigerian, and therefore a Commonwealth national. Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has brought new energy to the WTO and we want to work closely with her. We are confident that the WTO will move forward under her direction and be helpful to us.
In conclusion, we share a rich and vibrant history with the Commonwealth, which is epitomised through a shared commitment to democracy, peace and prosperity, and a good degree of always good-natured, I am sure, sporting rivalry, to come back to Birmingham. As we begin to embrace the unprecedented opportunities that lie ahead as an independent trading nation, we must re-boost our bonds of prosperity with partners in dynamic markets. The Commonwealth was formed in 1949 with just eight countries. It now has 54 members and the combined GDP of Commonwealth countries reached $13 trillion in 2020. This is why our Commonwealth partners are central to our plans for the future. This Government intend to utilise this opportunity to work with our friends and allies in the Commonwealth, to deliver not just in the UK but around the world.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone in the Chamber and our electronically connected friends for all their excellent speeches. Indeed, I thank the Minister for his excellent survey of the Government’s position and his round up of the debate. All of the speeches have been reminders that there is much more to trade and commerce than just trade itself. Without the wider conditions, there is no trade, nothing occurs, and prosperity disappears.
There is the health and vaccine issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was right to draw our attention to that, as did my noble friend Lady Hooper. The secretariat played a strong role in that, led by the secretary-general, Patricia Scotland, which I think has borne fruit, even with India’s colossal difficulties. There is also respect for human rights, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us about. There is the temptation or desire for others to join the Commonwealth, as my noble friend Lord Risby and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, said. That point seemed to be more eloquent than any speech: if people want to join something, it must be good.
There is the climate threat, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to, and the need to help the smaller island nations, particularly by adaptation. I think we all understand totally the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about fine Welsh lamb—how could we not? The basic point is that tastes, products and markets are changing. As my noble friend Lord Marland reminded us, there are completely new markets and new tastes, and new trade flows growing everywhere. My noble friend Lord Balfe reminded us that a lot of New Zealand and Australian products are going to the Middle East.
The message of all this is that we cannot stop where we are. We cannot go back; we have to go forward, and so does the Commonwealth, and so it is now going.
Women’s Health Outcomes
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
That this House takes note of the steps taken to improve women’s health outcomes.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to be introducing this debate on a topic so close to the hearts and other more intimate body parts of 51% of the population—and some men too, of course.
In my International Women’s Day speech this year, I departed from my usual topics of either women in Parliament or the reality of women’s and girls’ lives in the developing world to talk about women’s health. This change was a result of the Government’s very welcome launch of the first ever consultation and call for evidence to improve the health and well-being of women in England, designed to use women’s voices and experiences to write a new women’s health strategy. For the first time in years, I pondered a woman’s life cycle in terms of health, and I am grateful for the chance to expand on those thoughts today. What I found then, and again now, brought home to me all too graphically the experience of millions of women at different stages of their lives.
Let us start with puberty. It is a confusing time for any child but it is especially so for girls, who are entering puberty about a year earlier than they did back in the 1970s according to global data of 30 studies on breast development. Studies also show that early menstrual bleeding, the last clinical sign of puberty for girls, is associated with a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and allergies. During this period—excuse the pun—I thank journalist Emma Barnett for her book, Period: It’s About Bloody Time, which asks why we are so uncomfortable talking about, and clam up about, menstruation—girls have their first introduction to expensive sanitary products, starting for many period poverty, which affects their school attendance. Estimates vary, but around one in five women of childbearing age suffers from painful, irregular or heavy periods, many to a truly debilitating extent.
Endometriosis manifests itself around this time as well. It is a long-term condition where tissue similar to the lining of the womb grows in other places, such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. The main symptoms are back and stomach pain, increased period pain, pain during or after sex, pain when peeing or during a bowel movement, feeling sick, constipation, diarrhoea, blood in pee and difficulty getting pregnant. There is a seven-year wait to get diagnosed, with 40% of women needing 10 or more GP appointments before being referred to a specialist.
At this age, social media pressure and social contagion start to have an impact on teenagers’ body image, including anorexia and self-harming. Since 2016, there has been a 45% increase in labiaplasty operations, a female genital cosmetic procedure flippantly referred to as “designer vaginas”. This coincides with a time when vulnerable girls are groomed on the internet and the effects of porn not only are felt on their mental health but lead to this irreversible surgical procedure.
I turn to STIs and birth control. Syphilis and gonorrhoea have almost doubled in the past five years in school-age girls. While chlamydia is decreasing thanks to the screening programme, it remains a problem because of the irreparable damage to girls’ fertility and chronic pelvic inflammatory disease. Avoiding pregnancy is still largely seen as a girl’s responsibility. Boys should be taught that using a sheath not only prevents unwanted pregnancies but also reduces STDs for girls.
I now move to the stage of planned pregnancies and hoped-for motherhood. One in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, and these women feel let down. There is insensitivity and a lack of empathy in healthcare and arrogance among healthcare professionals, mainly male doctors, who will not and do not listen to patients. My friend had six miscarriages and finally visited a male Harley Street IVF doctor, who put her on a standard protocol for getting pregnant despite her arguing vociferously that getting pregnant clearly was not her problem. She got pregnant again and endured another avoidable miscarriage because she was not listened to. She then went to a female consultant and had a live birth on the first round of tailored treatment.
Antenatal care is inconsistent. Every woman should have the option of the same midwife throughout, up to their delivery. I wish my noble friend on the Front Bench today—she is probably very uncomfortable in her last two weeks—luck and an easy, quick birth, although I am afraid that there is no such thing as a pain-free birth. I also wish her access to the pain control that she wants and, ideally, no episiotomy. I am afraid that nothing can prepare her or other new mothers for the post-birth challenges of getting her body back to a reasonable condition, breastfeeding, disrupted sleep and so called “baby blues”, possibly followed by postnatal depression, which affects between 10% and 20% of women.
I come to motherhood next. In the vast majority of cases, women are the lead parent, combining most child- care with work, usually at a greater career cost than the father. This in turn leads to tension at home and often a relationship breakdown, leaving the mother as the major childcare provider, which in turn leads to increased mental health issues—I think other colleagues will talk about this—or the use of drugs or alcohol as crutches, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, may raise.
I turn to the eventual emptying of the nest, which is another time of stress in a relationship and often comes at the same time as caring for elderly parents. This is close to my heart because last year we lost my mother, whom we lived with, aged 96.
I now move on to the menopause, which is a “big one”. Some 34 years ago, I ran the Amarant Trust, a menopause charity funding ground-breaking research into HRT with the team at King’s College Hospital, which also ran our self-referring clinic. Women attended in droves, largely because of hostile, and in some cases misogynistic, GPs. I was pregnant at that time so my own hormones were in turmoil, although not lacking in oestrogen and the myriad of miserable symptoms that so many women experience at that time. I can still remember the distress that so many patients suffered in silence and how debilitated they were by the onslaught of flushes, sweats, sleeplessness, vaginal dryness, discomfort during sex and problems with memory and concentration.
A couple of years ago, I attended a round table with the then Women’s Health Minister and campaigners. I was astonished to find that the situation for menopausal women is no better than it was all those years ago when I was actively involved. Indeed, 23% of women who visit their GPs with symptoms are prescribed antidepressants instead of HRT. I was one of the lucky ones—I sailed through—but those suffering symptoms should of course be given the informed option of taking HRT, a transformational drug that makes life worth living again for so many women. I give a big shout-out to James Timpson, who wrote in last weekend’s Times of the need to
“stop the menopause hijacking careers”.
One newish MP told me that, before she was prescribed HRT, she thought that she would have to give up her job as an MP because it was impossible for her to do it properly. I am delighted to be a founder member of the new APPG for the menopause and look forward to its forthcoming inquiry.
In between all this, we have a miserable list of prolapses, cystitis and thrush. Although I have been comparatively lucky in my own health journey, the latter two caused hours of itching and discomfort, including of course painful sex. This is not always easy to discuss with a partner.
Then we have the female cancers. Cancer Research’s most recent figures, from 2015 to 2017, report about 75,000 new cases of breast, cervical, uterine and ovarian cancers. The Government’s sustained good work with the introduction of HPV vaccination is very welcome. Since then, infections of HPV in 16 to 18 year-old women have reduced by 86% in England. Considering that around 80% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV, we hope for big reductions in that cancer in the years to come, but let us keep the pressure on for improving the treatment and life expectancy of women suffering these diseases.
I turn to the final countdown, once we have passed the period of caring for aging parents and the move towards osteoporosis, leading to life-changing fractures caused by brittle bones, and then finally dementia.
Even with the generous 12 minutes that I have today, I can only touch the surface of women’s health issues. I pay credit to Health Ministers for taking our problems seriously and, in particular, to Nadine Dorries for driving this agenda, and whose own personal challenge with having an IUD fitted 36 years ago—which in the end she failed because of the intensity of the pain—was laid bare in the Daily Mail earlier this week. Many women are unable even to have a cervical smear because of the agony, but they now feel emboldened to speak out because of other women talking publicly, including the campaigner Caroline Criado Perez.
I am not alone among women in wondering whether, if these debilitating conditions afflicted men, better treatments would have been found by now. Less than 2.5% of publicly funded research is dedicated solely to reproductive health, despite the fact that one in three women in the UK will suffer from a reproductive or gynaecological health problem. There is five times more research into erectile dysfunction, affecting 19% of men, than into premenstrual syndrome, which apparently affects 90% of women.
Women are underrepresented in clinical trials even though biological differences between males and females can affect how medication works. The general assumption is that women do not differ from men except where their reproductive organs are concerned, and data obtained from clinical research involving men is simply extrapolated to women. This has important implications for health and healthcare. I understand that over 100,000 women have responded to the Government’s consultation and that they are currently unpacking the data. On behalf of women everywhere, I thank the Government for the initiative and for the forthcoming sexual and reproductive health strategy.
Noble Lords may not be aware that instances of domestic abuse increase by 26% when England play football and by 38% if they lose. So those who may not be looking forward to Sunday’s game will be especially welcoming the actions that the Government are taking on violence against women and girls.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister about how these initiatives will improve life for millions of women who are suffering in at least some of the ways that I have described today.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for introducing this important debate. I know that many important issues relating to inequalities in health will be addressed. I am delighted that the noble Baroness spoke eloquently about young women’s health; I shall raise concerns about young women’s mental health in particular.
The Association for Young People’s Health, of which I am a patron, has welcomed the proposal to develop a women’s health strategy for England, stating that this must take account of the diversity of young women’s health issues, and that young women and girls must participate in the development and implementation of the strategy. Young women’s experiences of healthcare are affected by general factors, such as deprivation, ethnicity and geography, and by specific issues, such as sexual and certain kinds of reproductive health issues, mental health, and gender-based violence. In general, young women’s health outcomes are less favourable than those of young men.
As the Mental Health Foundation states,
“There is no health without mental health”.
Mental health affects physical health and the data on mental health and well-being, self-harm, suicide and eating disorders show that the link between body image and life satisfaction is twice as strong for girls as for boys. Young women’s mental health gives specific rise to concerns: 43% of young women aged between 16 and 29 experience some depressive symptoms, compared with only 26% of men of the same age. Girls between the ages of 11 and 17 have had more emotional difficulties than boys during periods of school closures. As we know, Covid has had an unequal impact on different groups and individuals. Young people generally have been less likely to become infected with the virus, but have faced enormous upheavals in education, employment and social interaction during what is often a difficult period in their lives.
Given the different mental health needs of boys and girls, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has suggested that, to deal with these needs, different interventions and methods for supporting different young people are required. It recommends that an extra £500 million of investment is needed to address the mental health needs of children and young people. These needs, including treatment, have intensified to an alarming degree during Covid-19.
Can the Minister say whether the strategy for women’s health will take account of the importance of maintaining and improving research and data collection on young women’s health? Will the views of women and girls be taken into account as the strategy develops? Both these issues are important in ensuring access to services and appropriate, high-quality preventive measures and treatment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate on women’s health issues, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin.
A common issue coming out of all the briefings, and particularly from the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, published last year, is the need to listen to women when they talk about their health. We all heard the noble Baroness talking movingly in this House, when we first debated her report, about how upsetting it was when she really listened to the women who had been damaged, or whose babies had been damaged, by valproate, Primodos or vaginal mesh and how relieved the women were to be listened to at last. Can the Minister say when the Government will implement all her recommendations?
Information is vital because, without it, women cannot exercise proper choice. In the case of the anti-epilepsy drug valproate, we heard from women with epilepsy when we debated the report last year that women were still not being fully informed of the risks in case they become pregnant. Let us remember: about half the pregnancies occurring in the UK are unplanned.
So information is key, but so is listening. I am horrified when I hear that women who eventually get a diagnosis of endometriosis have usually been to their GP 10 times before they finally get a proper investigation, diagnosis and treatment—just one example of where women’s pain is not taken seriously. I recognise that the non-specific symptoms are of course difficult to diagnose, but I would like to know what training trainee doctors get in actively listening to women.
As we just heard, women are also underrepresented in clinical trials, even for drugs specifically aimed at women. This is completely unscientific when you understand the differences between women’s and men’s biology. Can the Minister say why the regulator allows this?
I am, like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, very concerned about women’s mental health services, particularly since the pandemic has isolated so many women in their homes with sole responsibility for caring for their children and sometimes elderly relatives. A listening ear has been more important than ever during the pandemic and many kind members of the community have stepped up, but they are no substitute for clinical services. Asking questions and listening to the answers is particularly important in antenatal clinics, where mental health issues and domestic violence can often be detected early. I ask the Minister: will women’s mental health be specifically included in the new Secretary of State’s plan for mental health?
Another factor of women’s health which has worsened over the past year is nutrition and obesity. We have seen an increase in poverty, which is linked to obesity, and an increase in eating disorders. When will we get Henry Dimbleby’s long-awaited national food strategy? This is really important for women themselves and for those they feed and care for.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the first male Member of your Lordships’ House to speak in the debate, I welcome very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, had to say. Her opening speech was, frankly, awesome—that is how I would describe it.
I do not apologise for returning to the Marmot review, which the Minister has heard me speak about before. Inequalities in life expectancy have increased since 2010, especially for women. Female life expectancy declined in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods between 2010-12 and 2016-18. Female life expectancy decreased in every region save for London, the West Midlands and the north-west. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, which has not happened since 1900. When health has stopped improving, it is a sign that society has stopped improving. That is all from the Marmot Review 10 Years On, published in February 2020.
Of course, health is linked to all the other conditions in which people are born, grow, live and work, together with inequalities in power, money and resources. Frankly, the Government have not prioritised health inequalities, despite the concerning trends, and there has been no national health inequality strategy since 2010. This is a national UK issue and cannot be shoved off as a devolved matter.
I have not mentioned Northern Ireland. It has suffered the same as the other three nations but one figure, set out on page 12 of Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review, is unique in respect of female health. The table is titled: “Relative cumulative age-standardised all cause mortality rates by sex, selected European countries, week ending 3 January to week ending 12 June 2020”. Of the eight countries where the situation got worse—as opposed to the 11 where it got better—the UK’s four nations were in the eight, and in only one of all the countries where it got worse, it got worse for females compared to males. That was Northern Ireland. There is quite clearly something badly wrong in health inequalities between men and women in Northern Ireland for it to stick out like that among all those countries. The recommendations for change are all well known. They are listed in both the Marmot reports I have used.
I note the BMA has highlighted more targeted issues, such as those relating to domestic abuse, pregnancy and maternity services, which male Secretaries of State keep ignoring. However, the first move has to be an acceptance that things have gone really badly since 2010, when the coalition Government imposed swingeing cuts to public expenditure without any analysis of the consequences. One consequence is the stalling of life expectancy, where women have been affected worse than men.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome today’s debate on women’s health outcomes and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for bringing this Motion to the House today in an extraordinarily moving way.
We know that there are many conditions where women are overrepresented—for example in mental health, where 26% of young women have experienced anxiety, depression or eating disorders. We know that with gynaecological conditions it often takes seven to eight years to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis, with 40% of women needing 10 or more GP appointments before being referred to a specialist.
In one area of women’s health, I became aware late last year that there was a national shortage of widely used contraceptive preparations and hormone replacement therapy products. In response to my Written Question, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, responded that this shortage was due to
“Issues such as regulatory or manufacturing problems, problems accessing supplies of pharmaceutical raw ingredients and commercial decisions to divest certain products”,
which
“can affect the supply of medicines.”
Throughout 2020, thousands of women were not able to access their normal oral contraceptive or hormone replacement therapy products. This is one recent example of women not having access to the pharmaceutical products they regularly used, though this also happens, as we know, with various medicines that both men and women take.
I declare my interest in the register as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Bladder and Bowel Continence Care. Women are five times more likely to develop urinary incontinence than men. This is something many women feel uncomfortable talking about or raising with their GP. For many women, bladder continence issues can result in a loss of independence, as they feel unable to leave their homes unless they know there are accessible public toilets near to where they are going. Much like gynaecological conditions, issues with continence care can take time to diagnose and cannot always be treated. Much greater awareness is needed of these conditions and, in particular, how they impact on women’s lives.
My final point is to draw attention to some depressing findings from the 2020 Marmot report, about which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke so movingly just now. According to Sir Michael’s 2020 report on health disparities, women living in the most deprived 10%—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am going to have to remind the noble Baroness of the time limit for Back-Bench contributions, given the number of speakers we have in this very important debate.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I suggest to the noble Baroness that perhaps she is already over the time limit and that we move on to the next speaker.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for leading this debate, an initiative wholly consistent, if I may say so, with her long record of campaigning on behalf of women.
Even in these days of deliberately stoked and exaggerated culture wars, there can be few who do not agree that millennia of structural inequalities have undermined women’s health worldwide. Further, it is obvious that the current devastating pandemic has magnified every such inequality on the planet. This includes the shocking, yet predictable, rise in domestic violence during necessary lockdowns, reduced access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and other vital women’s health and social services internationally.
Women are more likely to be involved in childcare, social care and cleansing, whether in the home or outside it, placing millions of them on the front line of infection. While older men seem more likely to die of Covid-19, it seems that women who survive it may be more likely to suffer from the chronic symptoms associated with long Covid. That means that every current decision in the debate about how best to either combat or live with the virus is likely to have a gendered impact.
The extent to which casting off the mask has become associated with one’s love of freedom is unfortunate indeed. I worry about the way in which some in government have become so wedded to irreversible “business as usual” from a particular date that they are risking more than necessary and perhaps forgetting that, for many, business as usual, even before the pandemic, was far from free, fair, safe or healthy.
If the Government want to honour their promise to vaccinate the planet and an earlier pledge for a new era of global Britain, they must stop siding with Germany in blocking the TRIPS waiver at the WTO and join the United States, India, South Africa and most of the Commonwealth—celebrated here earlier this afternoon—in demanding that industry shares know- how around vaccines, tests and treatment manufacture so these can be decentralised and scaled up to meet global demand.
19 July is not “freedom day”, but it could yet be solidarity day in a global race against vaccine-resistant variants and even more deaths.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, on securing this debate, which feels particularly timely as we mark the 73rd birthday of the NHS this week. Women were undoubtedly among its most immediate beneficiaries, as the expansion of maternity care put an end to many of the horror stories of obstetric disasters, post-delivery haemorrhage and infections needlessly killing mothers after childbirth, for want of sterile surroundings. We have come a long way since then, but there is still some way to go.
The Library’s helpful briefing makes clear a range of healthcare areas in which women experience worse outcomes than men, including mental health. The Mental Health Foundation reports a strong relationship between women’s physical and mental health, with 85% of its surveyed members reporting that menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, fertility pressures and contraception impacted negatively on their mental health.
I will focus on eating disorders—serious mental health disorders that can affect anyone, but which are much more prevalent in women than men. A recent Finnish study found that one in six female adolescents and young adults met the criteria for an eating disorder, compared with one in 40 males. The pandemic has seen eating disorders spike, with demand for services up 200% in some areas and waiting lists at record highs. Those with high-BMI eating disorders cannot access treatment, since clinical pathways for binge eating are currently closed, as the NHS struggles to cope with the increase in low-weight disorders.
This is nothing short of a public health crisis, yet it receives neither the attention nor the funding it warrants. The best-known eating disorder, anorexia nervosa, has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder in the UK, yet the last available dataset comparing all mental health related research grants from major UK funders revealed that eating disorders received just 1% of the near £500 million available over the four-year period surveyed.
It is hard not to conclude that eating disorders suffer a triple whammy of perception and misperception: first, they are seen as a niche problem largely affecting a middle-class elite, which is not true; secondly, they are mental health conditions and, despite claims to the contrary, we have yet to live up to our promise to give mental and physical health parity of esteem; and finally, above all, they are seen as women’s issues.
Earlier this year, in the other place, the Minister Nadine Dorries said,
“for generations women have lived with a healthcare system that is designed by men, for men.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/21; col. 535.]
Women continue to suffer as a result. I look forward to the forthcoming women’s health strategy and hope that it has some effect in redressing this age-old imbalance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on her opening speech. One of my main concerns is that, historically, women have been underrepresented in clinical research, as both researchers and the subject of research. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, also referred to that. As a result, many diagnostic tests and treatments have been based on data gathered from men. Women are still not taking part in clinical trials to the same level as men. We need to understand the barriers that prevent women taking part in these trials, and encourage and enable them to take part.
This impacts across medical provision, but I will focus on heart attacks. Research into different treatments for men and women has shown that women are more likely to be treated less aggressively in their initial encounters with the healthcare system, until they have to prove that they are as sick as male patients. Once they are perceived to be as ill as similarly situated males, they are likely—but not always—to be treated similarly. This can be seen with heart attacks, where women having a heart attack delay seeking medical help longer than men because they do not recognise the symptoms and believe it is men who get heart attacks, not women. Some 50% are more likely than a man to receive the wrong initial diagnosis for a heart attack. Many are less likely than men to receive a number of potentially life-saving treatments in a timely way and, following a heart attack, are less likely to be prescribed medications to help prevent a second heart attack.
If there was any complacency about women’s health issues, the recent report from the Health Select Committee on the shocking state of many maternity services should be a great warning to us. This has been known for some time now. There has been an endless number of inquiries, yet we have been waiting for action for far too long.
It is not just about research and treatment of disease, as experienced by women. Ensuring women’s safety, privacy and dignity while they are in hospital is vital. Women often favour single-sex wards for very good reason: rates of sexual assault are far higher in mixed-sex wards. The Health Service Journal reported last year that at least 1,000 sexual assaults were reported by female and male patients on mixed-sex mental health wards between April 2017 and October 2019, yet there are indications that the NHS is moving away from giving enough provision to single-sex wards. Could the Minister look into this and see what can be done to ensure the NHS does what Ministers asked of it over the last years?
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an important and timely debate and I give full congratulations to my noble friend Lady Jenkin on introducing it. I start by echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the requirement for urgent action following my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report. It is harder being a Health Minister in the Lords because there are so many experts. I chose my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and we worked together harmoniously. It is time we had a patient safety commissioner. That is part of the recommendations, only one of which has been properly implemented. We need a register of doctors’ interests.
My real purpose in speaking is to relate my experience at the University of Hull. Only one in four medical deans is female. At Hull, Professor Una Macleod is a general practitioner who still works in east Hull. She shapes and fashions the medical school so that it is relevant to the disadvantaged and underprivileged. Many in the House will know that my first job was working for the noble Lord, Lord Field. He went to the University of Hull and, for 16 years, I have been proud to be its chancellor. It is trying to reach out to the disadvantaged and neglected, who I call the inarticulate needy, not the articulate greedy, to whom I was so used in my former constituency.
I applaud much of the research, often by nurses and the professor of nursing, because nurses listen and are where the patients are. We have talked about underrepresentation in surveys, and Professor Lesley Smith has done some magnificent work on why younger women in lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to take part in population surveys. She has fashioned a tool to reach out to underprivileged, disadvantaged, less-connected and younger women so that we can understand what they need and want.
Dr Roger Sturmey talks of one in four women suffering from a miscarriage, but of only 2% of research going into miscarriage. A nursing professor of perinatal mental health said that women’s health outcomes and that of their babies are not good enough. He has designed a new measure, a revised birth satisfaction scale.
Over the years, there has been a dramatic improvement in women’s health. When William Wilberforce lived in Hull, women lived to 44. Now, the overall life expectancy is 82.7 years for women and 78.7 years for men but, as noble Lords have said, this conceals areas of neglect and suffering. It is not the extra years only, but the quality of them. I believe that, by looking more deeply and working with professions other than the traditional medical professions and by focusing our research, we can do more to meet the unmet need that so many in this House are so knowledgeable about and have contributed so strongly on.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for securing this debate—a timely update a year on from the brilliant report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, just said.
Today’s debate led me to look back over our debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, during which the Government conceded, after Scotland led the way, on a patient safety commissioner for England. We were promised then that serious consideration was being given to the report’s other recommendations to support victims of disastrous medical procedures and to prevent future avoidable damage. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in pointing out that the victims of sodium valproate, pelvic mesh implants and Primodos are still waiting. The First Do No Harm report concluded that thousands of lives were ruined because officials failed to listen to female patients. I hope we might hear some good news on that issue from the Minister.
In three minutes, there are many issues I could cover, but I want to extend the conclusions of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to broader issues. I note that women wait longer to be diagnosed for many conditions, including cancer, and that heart disease in women is more likely to be misdiagnosed. Mental health is likely to be the diagnosis for a wide range of conditions that have a clear physical cause, often discovered only after many years of suffering.
I note too that intersectionality is at sometimes deadly and always damaging play here, and that women from BAME backgrounds and the LGBTIQA+ community are more likely to report poor treatment from their GP and receive inadequate support from services.
In the brief time left to me, I thought I would focus on an area still getting far too little attention and, like so many others, that is being exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. That is musculoskeletal disorders. I point the House to the excellent briefing for this debate from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which covers that as well as many other important issues. I should perhaps declare a personal interest here, having relied over many decades on physiotherapists to keep me going and repair damage wrought on the sporting field and in the workplace.
As I read that briefing’s recommendations on preventing musculoskeletal problems through access to occupational health physiotherapy, I thought of some women I met in Sheffield working at picking up baskets for a major supermarket’s home delivery service from midnight to dawn. I heard from them how physically challenging it was and how tough it was in the chiller and freezer sections.
We have to think about the many women who are doing what is often a double shift in the home with child and elder care. They also suffer musculoskeletal damage from that, and would greatly benefit from musculoskeletal first contact physiotherapists in primary care being available to all.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, thanks are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for all she has done for women’s health. She mentioned pregnancy. Black women in the UK have higher rates of morbidity and mortality related to pregnancy and childbirth than any other section of the community. They have worse outcomes too for breast and cervical cancer. Black women of Afro-Caribbean origin are less likely to consult health professionals regarding symptoms of perinatal depression. The British Journal of General Practice gives as the perceived reasons for this a lack of compassion in healthcare workers and a lack of culturally sensitive staff. I hope the Minister will address how training is going to address these issues.
Reference has been made to Covid. In a study of maternal death in the course of the Covid pandemic, it was revealed that 88% of the deaths investigated in the report Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care were from black and ethnically diverse groups. I hope the Government will ensure that, in learning the lessons of Covid, the impact of ethnicity and racism is taken into account. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has called on the Government to take action on racial disparities and on the Government’s own racial disparity audit and the extent of the real problem it reveals. What action is in fact being taken in that area?
Black and south Asian ethnic-minority women suffer a double whammy of gender and ethnicity. They suffer a real disadvantage in their access to healthcare and of positive outcomes. There is an issue—we cannot ignore it—of unconscious bias. This leads to adverse behaviours. It leads also, I am afraid, to adverse outcomes. We need to address this in training and continuous professional development.
The absence of black and ethnic-minority women in all too many clinical trials reveals an equally important issue, as well as a stereotyping of south Asian women as somehow more likely to suffer pain and of black women as non-compliant. If you are a black or Asian woman, you are more likely to find yourself locked up in a secure ward. You are less likely to have treatment by way of talking therapies. We know that we need partnerships with women’s organisations; we need to listen better to women, especially black women, and we need resources. All these things are necessary if we are to translate good intentions into action that makes a real difference for women in general and black and ethnic-minority women in particular.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I welcome this important debate on women’s health. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, and thank her profoundly for her deep and permanent commitment to the health and welfare of girls and women.
Like her, I have worked overseas and on the ground as a volunteer on violence against girls and women and, specifically for this debate, on raped and tortured female victims. Indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and I were working on that together only 10 days ago for Yazidi victims. I seek our Government’s ongoing commitment to the plight of these most special girls and women, both here and in the war-torn nations where I work, above all others. These heavily damaged survivors of continuous rape by different but always violent males deserve the very best of surgical and general healthcare.
My praise for our NHS staff and volunteer rape crisis centre teams in Britain, all of whom treat raped girls and women with outstanding care and sensitivity, is unbounded. However, the natural growth of social concern for difference and our proper national commitment to greater inclusion has led to the appointment of natal males to tend to acutely female needs, such as intimate care for mentally challenged in-patient girls, and to lead staff posts in rape victim settings. I believe the noble Baroness will join me in examining these breaches of customary dignities afforded to women whose capacity is either limited since birth, accident or illness or has been compromised by rape or other indignities. Should they not be care for, nurtured and helped to live by fellow females? Common sense and parental requests suggest they surely should, yet that is not the case today. I urge the Minister, for whom I have the highest respect, to pay heed to research and take steps to correct this situation.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness. She is a great campaigner and is prepared to reach out across all Benches. That is much required with the problems we face.
I think I am probably the first to mention football, but I mention Denmark and congratulate it on the work it does with women. Denmark ranks the highest in the whole world in presenting a community in which women have equality; it respects and does not abuse women. Women are treated as well as men at work and in health terms. It is a great country and should be proud of what it has done.
We could learn a lot from Scandinavia about how we treat each other, and in particular how we treat women. Look at what Denmark does with justice—restorative rather than punitive justice, which we engage in so much in this country. Do noble Lords know that Denmark does not fill its prisons? In fact, it invites neighbouring countries with a surplus of prisoners to send them to Denmark. That is because of the way it approaches its problems.
Similarly, we find that Denmark deals with issues we have here, where women are abused because of alcohol—that and a whole range of other topics were mentioned earlier—in a quite different way. We really ought to learn that we should visit others and invite them here to try to help us with some of our problems. Basically, I think it does so well because, as in other Scandinavian countries, the inequality in wealth is so minimal by comparison with what we experience. We cannot run away from that.
My noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised Sir Michael Marmot’s continuing work on inequality and the need to get incomes and salaries closer together, in the way that we had 30 or 40 years ago. This is fundamental to health and so many aspects of what happens in society. I look to the Minister to see whether the Government are doing work on it.
This morning I listened to Nadine Dorries talk on a Zoom exercise about the coming review. There have been 112,000 responses to the strategy. Like others, I look forward to seeing whether something positive comes out of it and that we have attached to it a firm action programme.
Like others, I spoke on the great report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but when is the action coming? What are the Government going to do with that? When will we see the action programme presented to the House?
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for initiating this debate. In my practice of medicine and research, mental health has always been one of my concerns, and it is obviously a very important feature in the health of women. One survey, which I think has already been mentioned, showed that 90% of people believe that mental health affects physical health and 90% believe that physical health affects mental health.
In trying to achieve better outcomes, I think it is sensible to look for cost-effective ways. For instance, the mental harm done by loneliness can be mitigated by frequent visits from friends and relatives, and this may also delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease and help them when the condition progresses. Importantly, there are many ways to reduce stress—for instance, bringing in a four-day week. When a three-day week was introduced in 1974, there was no drop in productivity, which was interesting and surprising.
Better outcomes could be achieved by reducing violence, rape and abuse of all kinds, and alerting the public to the increased domestic violence following football matches, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned. Violence against women is also bound up with pornography and prostitution. A Swedish law making it illegal to pay for a prostitute reduces the opportunities for violence against women and could be passed here in this country. Those opposing such a law might be asked whether they have an interest to declare.
It is estimated that there are several million disabled people being cared for by women at home. For them, respite care is absolutely essential.
Lastly, a great deal of mental and physical ill health is due to the obesity epidemic, which has caused an enormous amount of ill health and is also responsible, in this country and many others, for the high mortality from Covid. There is only one way of dealing with obesity: put fewer calories into the mouth. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, has done a great deal, in practical ways, to achieve this by advocating ways of finding and cooking healthy and affordable food and inviting people to these healthy and cheap lunches.
We must make a real effort to achieve better health outcomes for women in this country.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for enabling this important debate. Unlike other health comparisons, the gap between men’s and women’s health is wider in some developed countries than in some less-developed ones. The UK ranks 87th in the world for men’s health, while it ranks 125th for women’s health—38 places lower. This gap puts it 12th in the international list of women’s health inequality. How can this be?
One of the reasons appears to be the misdiagnosis of women’s symptoms, which I will come to later. A second reason is that women are more likely to live in poverty than men. Whether as single parents, unemployed, on low pay, disabled or as pensioners, women are likely to be poorer than their male counterparts.
Not all inequalities in health relate to gender. Better-off women can expect 20 additional years of healthy life than those who are worse off. Even before the pandemic, progress on healthy life expectancy had stalled and begun to go backwards. The latest figures show that less than a third of women are still in work by the time they reach retirement age. For many, this is not through choice but because they cannot find work or are actually too ill to work. We are condemning many of these women to spend the remainder of their lives in poverty.
As we have heard from several speakers, women have to shout louder to get their concerns listened to. Some of the women who have had to shout the loudest are those affected by mesh implants. The independent review chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, produced its report First Do No Harm one year ago today. It found that women describing their excruciating chronic pain were dismissed as imagining it or told it was their “time of life”. The report argued that anything and everything that women suffer is perceived as a natural precursor to, part of or a post-symptomatic phase of the menopause. What do the Government intend to do to prevent so many women spending their later years in ill health and poverty? When can we expect the establishment of a redress agency, as proposed in First Do No Harm?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is nearly 40 years since a group of us women set up our country’s first women’s health advocacy group, with the aim of improving both equality of access for women’s health and prenatal mortality rates for women and babies, in addition to unlocking women’s voices and choices of maternity care. According to the same project, to this day women’s experiences remain poor and unequal.
While we continue to frame minority women, particularly Muslim women, within the parameters of numerous health and social problems, including domestic violence and cultural disadvantages, Muslim women’s presence in the public square remains negligible and they are mostly absent from NHS management and decision-making boards. Some minority women, when they are in such positions, feel so constrained in their advocacy on racism, prejudice and Islamophobia that in order to avoid political rejection they feel unable to effect any meaningful changes for women, who continue to have no voice and to experience generations of poor health and inequalities, as my noble friend Lord Boateng so ably pointed out.
The experience of Islamophobia is deep-rooted, affecting every sinew of politics, policies and, therefore, services. In maternity and care services, Islamophobia has continued to impact the quality of care, attitudes and behaviours for the last five decades. It is so regrettable that women continue to experience these painful inequalities. I do hope the new strategies that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, so powerfully highlighted will speak to all women in all communities.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Jenkin on her excellent introduction to this very important debate.
As we have heard, one of the biggest health issues for women is mental health, which has been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Evidence suggests, and the front-line experience of GPs I have spoken to shows, that women are more prone than men to experiencing anxiety, depression and somatic complaints. Depression is the most common mental health problem for women and suicide is a leading cause of death in women under 60. Linked to this, there has been an increase in physical and psychological problems and sexual abuse, with increasing domestic violence towards women.
During the pandemic, the resulting reduction in sexual health and pregnancy services has caused serious problems. Women’s health is incredibly important because women are frequently the cornerstone of a family’s overall health and well-being. They are carers of children, providers of home schooling and often carers of elderly, sick and/or disabled family members. There is clearly a major impact on the family when there is a deterioration in women’s health.
It is estimated that 28% of women over 65 have diagnosable depression but only 15% will receive treatment from the NHS. Ensuring that women have access to quality and appropriate care directly leads to improved health for children and families. Future service provision should mean co-producing collaborative care models that encourage service users and clinicians to engage in a shared understanding of care needs, treatment and support preferences. This agenda should prompt greater public mental health and preventive self-management. I am impressed by the work being done by Dynamic Health Systems, a company about to launch an evidence-based, artificial intelligence-enabled platform for the self-management of mental health conditions by individuals and populations. An appropriate and effective mental health service needs a gender-informed approach, with services diagnosed to take account of the differential needs of women and men. There must be recognition of the need to collect gender-informed health and social care data. If women’s mental health services are to improve, successful implementation requires a workforce trained in gender differences in mental health.
Can my noble friend the Minister clarify in his response the approach that the Government will take to wider mental health support, particularly in suicide prevention work? What support are the Government giving to the self-management of mental health through digital services such as those to which I have referred?
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for this debate.
The key to reversing poor health for women is ensuring that the Government provide a range of public services related to women’s health, child and family care, domestic violence and reproductive and sexual health, as well as a just redistribution of wealth and income. Fiscal and welfare policies have major consequences for women but government announcements are rarely accompanied by any gender impact assessment.
Wage freezes for public sector workers have hit women the hardest, as many occupy low-paid jobs, but there has been no gender impact assessment even though poverty levels are higher for female-headed households. By freezing personal allowances, the 2021 Budget will force poorly paid women to pay more in tax. The 107 pages of the Budget document uses to the word “women” just three times. Childcare was not even mentioned. Some 46% of mothers being made redundant say that lack of childcare is a major factor in their redundancy.
The Government are cutting universal credit by £1,040 a year. That is not accompanied by any assessment of the impact on women. Janet Mackay from Oxfordshire wrote to me. She stated:
“My disabled daughter can’t just get a job and this cut will lower her quality of life. It’s monstrous to do this to the disabled.”
Despite gender inequalities, the Government raised the state pension age to 66 and deprived millions of 1950s-born women of their state pension for six years. The impact assessment said little about the quality of life for women. It does not get any easier after retirement either. As a fraction of average earnings, the UK state pension is one of the lowest in the industrialised world. The charity Independent Age has reported that 2.1 million pensioners are living in poverty and 1.1 million in severe hardship. People aged over 85 are most affected, and women are worse affected than men.
I therefore ask the Minister to give a public undertaking that all fiscal and welfare policies will be accompanied by an impact assessment from women’s perspective.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for this important debate and for her awesome—as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described it—opening speech. Given the time constraints, I simply want to make two points.
First, women’s health is not only important for all the reasons noble Lords have already outlined. Women’s health issues have far-reaching implications beyond just the health of women. When looking at positive outcomes for families and children, particularly disabled children, the burden of care still, in 2021, falls disproportionately on mothers. Therefore, ensuring continued good health for women has consequential effects on the well-being and good health of the rest of the population, as well as on women themselves.
Secondly, I want to address the importance of data, including what data we are collecting, how we are collecting it and what we might do with it to improve women’s health outcomes. Good data can ensure that women’s issues are addressed in research and lead to practical improvements in service delivery. NHS Greater Glasgow is currently undertaking a project funded by the Scottish Government to develop an epilepsy register for Scotland so that appropriate continuous care can be successfully delivered. I declare an interest as, in my capacity as chair of the National Advisory Committee for Neurological Conditions in Scotland, I have been able to monitor the progress of this work. The project team has started by focusing on women with epilepsy because, as was previously noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, there are risks associated with pregnancy. In particular, taking epilepsy medicines containing sodium valproate can cause serious harm to an unborn baby. The project has identified who holds what data: GP, consultant, midwife or pharmacist. These data sources may not even talk to each other but, once the data has been gathered, consultants can cross-reference to see who is taking what medication, whether medication is being missed and whether appointments are being missed so that the highest-risk women can be identified and their care actively managed. Early results are showing that the development of a register is leading to significant improvements in outcomes for women with epilepsy and their babies.
This is just one project in one area covering one condition. I hope that this work will find a way to be scaled up to cover more conditions in more areas. Think what could be achieved if we were able to ensure that the information gathered and stored regarding women’s health could be co-ordinated in such a positive way, for it remains the case that if you are not counted, you do not count. I believe that the Covid pandemic has illustrated the importance of robust health data and has given us the impetus to ensure that such data is co-ordinated across services. I ask that the Government’s first women’s health strategy for England ensures that women’s health data is identified, collected and used to inform service improvements so that we can see actions and results to improve women’s health outcomes.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for this debate and for her thoughtful and informative intro. She pulled no punches—rightly so—in her description of the often painful lifelong journey of women and girls. I welcome the statement by Nadine Dorries, the Minister for Patient Safety, on the government-led women’s health strategy—the first one.
In May 2020, in response to a Written Question on whether hospitals were required to provide single-sex services, including spaces for patients, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that the revised guidance on delivering same-sex accommodation published by NHS England and NHS Improvement stated that
“providers of National Health Service-funded care are expected to have a zero-tolerance approach to mixed-sex accommodation, except where it is in the overall best interest of all patients”.
Many NHS trusts interpret that in a number of ways that are not always conducive to the health and treatment of women and girls as patients. As many noble Lords have said, we should be listening to patients and seeking examples of best practice. Women often favour single-sex wards for good reason. Rates of sexual assault are far higher in mixed-sex wards. In 2009, Channel 4 discovered that almost two-thirds of sexual assaults by patients occurred in mixed-sex wards.
The Minister stated that there were
“no plans to withdraw the guidance.”
Can I suggest to the Minister that he reconsider this whole issue? He also stated:
“NHS trusts have not been asked to provide the information required to make an assessment of the impact of allowing patients to self-identify their gender and there are no plans to ask them to do so.”
There are many examples of assaults on women in mental hospitals and other areas. Surely we recognise that, when women enter hospital, they do so to experience a calm, safe and non-threatening environment. I ask the Minister to meet Peers concerned about this issue.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for securing this important debate and for depicting the lifecycle of women, with its many challenges. There are life challenges, societal challenges and, above all, gynae- cological challenges, which we have all faced in our lives.
It is quite clear that research has found a gender health gap in the UK, where many women receive poorer healthcare than men. This poses the question: why has this been the case and what measures will be taken to rectify the situation at governmental level, working with communities and the voluntary sector?
Many of the challenges facing women’s healthcare have already been raised in the Paterson Inquiry, and the First Do No Harm report, which found that the healthcare system was
“disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive.”
The Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care report said that, between 2016 and 2018, 217 women, or 9.7 women per 100,000, died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after childbirth
“from causes associated with their pregnancy”.
In academic research, Caroline Criado Perez, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, has already referred, has argued that women have been considered less important in healthcare as far back as ancient Greece. Arguing that the problem still exists due to a patriarchal worldview being prevalent in our healthcare system, she said that women are routinely under- represented in clinical trials and that medical research proposed by women is not allotted the same funding as medical research proposed by men for men. I am not sure about that, as somebody who is on a clinical trial—a double-blind trial for breast cancer.
Research and observations would show that, in many societies, women have provided the caring at the expense of being cared for, thus placing their health needs as secondary to those of men. I look at research from Northern Ireland and a matter that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It shows that women have a 70% chance of providing care, compared with 60% of men. By the time they are 46, half of all women have been a carer—11 years before men. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, recent ONS figures show that there is a gap of more than 20 years in the healthy life expectancy of women between the least and most wealthy parts of the country. For men, the gap is around 15 years. In the most deprived parts of the country, women will only stay healthy to just over age 50, while for the best-off areas it is around age 70 or a little above. Women are also more prone to poverty, financial insecurity, interrupted and low-paid employment, and mental health problems, all of which obviously impact their health outcomes.
Covid-19 risks accelerating women’s health inequalities, for example due to delays in regular screening that are likely to increase the number of women with pelvic and breast cancers detected and diagnosed too late. Also, as the pandemic has placed so much more strain on women in their family roles as carers, whether combining home schooling with home working or caring for elderly loved ones, the added responsibility and loss of wider support that they had previously relied on will all take a toll on women’s health, in both the short and longer term.
I therefore congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on her excellent timing on this debate, and her most brilliant introduction—what a tour de force. In fact, I have been concerned for a time about older women’s health deteriorating since 2010. Cuts to council budgets have led to reductions and delays in social care provision, as well as the removal of preventive measures in many areas such as meals on wheels, day centres and early-stage care support. This obviously poses a risk to the health of older women both directly, because there are more elderly women than men and they are not receiving the care they need, and indirectly because of the added burdens on family carers, who tend to be predominantly daughters and mothers. Social care reform is important for women’s health outcomes and I hope there is an increased recognition of this.
Finally, problems faced by older women in the workplace are troubling. In certain sectors they face more age discrimination at work than men, particularly women who have challenging health issues when they go through menopause. Even though menopause systems tend to affect women’s health only temporarily, the lack of understanding of the impacts too often lead women to either leave work or lose their jobs. There is insufficient appreciation that a change to performance and efficiency, whether due to a lack of sleep after night sweats or hot flushes and hormonal changes that undermine concentration, will not be permanent. Therefore, I hope my noble friend the Minister will address some of these issues of menopause at work that could allow women to return or stay in their jobs. Currently, they are too often leaving work.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks of the Chamber to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for securing this important debate. Along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jenkin, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Walmsley, I was trustee of UNICEF. Its work to help educate and protect girls and young women in dangerous countries across the world—of which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, spoke so movingly, when talking of the horror of rape for girls and women in war-torn communities—demonstrates that we absolutely need to support United Nations projects to protect girls and women throughout the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, is right: we need worldwide action to eliminate this scourge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, was so right to set this debate in the lifecycle of a woman. She gave us a female equivalent of Shakespeare’s seven ages of man and, while it may not have been in iambic pentameters, it was striking in its arguments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, faces the glorious arrival of a baby. I want to offer, as other noble Lords have done, best wishes for a safe arrival and a hope that, if the baby is a girl, her daughter’s experience of health will be very different from her mother’s and her grandmother’s. Predominantly male medics told us what they thought we had and wanted but, too often, I am afraid, had not listened to us before they spoke. Much has improved over the years, but there is still room for improvement, as this debate has shown.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about the incidence of eating disorders, and how important it is that young women are listened to and supported—and, of equal importance, have access to specialist medical help early on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, focused on the problems that many women face with mental health today. The Royal College of Psychologists is right to set out the need for an extra £500 million of funding to ensure that they get the tailored support they need, when they need it. There are too many long delays in CAMHS.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Bennett, were spot on to remember the failures that fell to the women with valproate and vaginal mesh problems, investigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her excellent report. When will the Government implement the key recommendations from that report, particularly the patient safety commissioner?
My noble friend Lady Walmsley also referred to domestic violence. There is no doubt that the healthcare providers can help to spot signs of concern early on. But the BMA has reminded us that healthcare professionals need training early on and support from other agencies to make that happen. That most women wait until in excess of 30 incidents before they go to the police is shocking, but GPs, nurses and midwives are often able to assist women in recognising that they are facing problems early on, and help them to deal with that.
It is extraordinary that women have a much higher level of autoimmune diseases than men. With some diseases, it is 80% higher. Researchers are still trying to understand why, but serious autoimmune diseases can still significantly reduce lifespan, or the patient has to face many years on immune suppressants to prevent the disease progressing. In this year of Covid, that has of course given them further problems. Endometriosis, which happens to be my second autoimmune disease, introduced me as a young woman to the indignity of the mostly male doctors managing my condition and its consequences for fertility, high miscarriage risk and a life of severe pain, which hardly any medics understand. That GPs think it is just like a bad period pain completely misses the point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to contraceptive services and their supply during the pandemic. She was right to say that women need to be able to access those services all year round, and throughout the United Kingdom, because failures can have serious consequences for young women.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, ably set out a range of women’s services where other countries are setting us good examples of how we can improve the lives of women, including respite care for the many unpaid carers, mainly women. His point was echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Fraser and Lady Ritchie. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, also gave us an excellent example of combining data to cross-reference women with epilepsy and their medicines. She said, “If you’re not counted, you don’t count”. I am reminded here that the suffragists scrawled “Votes for women” across the 1911 census and are visible to history, whereas the suffragettes chose just to boycott the census, so their contribution is invisible to history.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about women’s cancer diagnoses coming significantly later than men’s. I know that other Members of your Lordships’ House have faced this, but we have a close family member whose 34 year- old daughter missed her cervical smear test last year because of the pandemic and now is facing terminal cancer. That is really shocking. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly reminded us of shocking failures at some maternity hospitals. While it is good that reports are now highlighting these failures, is there also a systematic review of the funding and staffing of maternity services across the country, as most of the reports refer to staff shortages as well as problems with the culture?
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, vitally reminded us of the Marmot report and how it set out the problems that women face in society today, especially in Northern Ireland. One of the topics in the Government’s consultation paper was on using data to improve women’s experiences. How is this sort of data shared and used to understand the disparity between the four nations?
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, talked about the male-female inequality league and how the UK should do better. How do the Government plan to address some of the clear health disparities?
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, also talked about continence services. Twenty years ago, discussion of periods in public was pretty taboo. Endometriosis and the menopause have recently become more acceptable issues to discuss but, frankly, continence services remain taboo for many. Women who often face long-term problems after difficult childbirth are unable to seek the help they need when their bladders start to fail in the later years. I hope that this debate will help to start that discussion and encourage women to seek help from their GPs at an early stage.
Recently, I had some discussion with young doctors working with the elderly—mainly women—who fell and broke limbs, imperilling their independence and ability to stay at home. These doctors are looking at best practice on early intervention with these patients, after minor falls, that supports and trains the patient. This has already significantly reduced the serious falls that too many women have later on. It is also saving the NHS a vast amount of money and keeping these women independent for much longer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, raised the problems of unconscious bias and the stereotyping of black and Asian women. I am sorry to say that this is also true of LGBT women. My noble friend Lady Barker has often spoken of the need for specialist geriatric services for them. Those who claim to object to the woke agenda need to understand that these biases—conscious or not—are the root of women’s health inequality. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed at how the voices of, and services for, women were invisible in the Budget. Today’s debate has shown that this House is keen to see the eradication of all health inequalities affecting women, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the maternity champion for Whittington Health, of which I am a non-executive director. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on bringing forward this debate, which has been of very high quality. Her introduction was both comprehensive and—although I am not sure that I would say Shakespearean —encompassed the whole of life.
I am particularly proud of my nine or 10 noble friends who took part in this debate. My noble friend Lady Massey talked about young women; my noble friend Lord Rooker talked about health inequalities and Marmot; my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti talked about our international responsibilities; my noble friend Lord Hunt talked about heart attacks and discrimination —I will come back to that later—my noble friend Lord Boateng talked about the higher rates of mortality for black people and racial disparities within healthcare; my noble friend Lord Brooke talked about learning the lessons of domestic violence; my noble friends Lord Sikka and Lady Bryan talked about the misdiagnosis of symptoms and inequalities in health; and my noble friend Lord Young talked about single-sex wards. But contributions have come from all sides of the House. I welcome the women’s health strategy consultation: I very much look forward to seeing what comes out of that.
As did the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, I want to address the systematic discrimination against women and the gender data gap. She and several other noble Baronesses mentioned Caroline Criado Perez and her work in this area. She said that medical research has traditionally been based around the male body. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out that women were 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack, but they make up only 25% of the participants across the landmark trials for congestive heart failure. Given that we have a Minister in this House who is very enthusiastic and keen about data and its use and all those things, this issue is very important.
Most medical trials are done on male cells; even female cells react differently. For millennia, medicine has functioned on the assumption that male bodies represent humanity as a whole. As a result, we have a huge historical data gap when it comes to female bodies. That means that women will be dying when they do not need to. The medical world is complicit in this and that needs to change. I am pleased that this was referred to in the women’s health strategy. I hope that it is going to be followed up when the strategy comes to fruition after the consultation process.
It is interesting; I learned, for example, that the first production of the Fitbits that we are all so keen on did not include menstrual cycles in their data, so over 50% of the world was not properly recognised. I am assured that that is absolutely no longer the case. The tech world, of course, is designing the future, so we have to acknowledge the need for diversity in that. If tech is designed by white, middle-class men from America, the future might look very nice to them but not for everybody else. Diversity in the teams and ideas is vital. Artificial intelligence that helps doctors with diagnoses and scans, and with conducting job interviews and so on, is vital, but it all depends on the datasets. If those datasets are designed by those white males in America, then we are all—or at least half of us are—in serious trouble. If you tell an algorithm what a heart attack is based on male symptoms, how are we going to make sure that it recognises female symptoms? These are the issues on which I am particularly interested to know the Minister’s thinking.
I turn briefly to women and Covid. We know that Covid-19 did not strike the sexes equally. Globally, for every 10 Covid-19 intensive care unit admissions for women, there were 18 for men. While men over 50 tended to suffer the most acute symptoms of Covid, there is evidence that women seem to be disproportionately affected by long Covid; one study suggested that women outnumber men by as much as four to one. A study led by the University of Glasgow concluded that
“women under 50 are seven times more likely to be breathless and twice as likely to report fatigue than men, seven months after seeking medical assistance for Covid-19.”
Some academics have linked this to the fact that women have a higher lifetime risk of inflammatory immune conditions such as chronic pain, chronic fatigue and autoimmune diseases. Can the Minister assure us that these issues are a standard part of the ongoing research on the effects of Covid?
A key point that came out when the strategy was first announced by the Government was the need to listen to women’s voices. That is absolutely vital. The House has been active in expressing the need for this, particularly in support of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. We have made significant progress in implementing some of her report and I hope that we will see more of it included and embedded in the forthcoming legislative programme on health and social care.
To conclude, I thank all speakers who have taken part in this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We live in a patriarchal and deeply unequal society. Covid has highlighted those inequalities, particularly health inequalities, and it must be said that, since 2010, the noble Baroness’s Government have been guilty of cuts and underfunding across the whole of our health system, which has disproportionately affected the poor—and that means it has disproportionately affected women. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the Minister will agree that having the best possible women’s health strategy in the world will, as it were, butter no parsnips if it is not properly resourced and funded.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I join all those who have commended my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for tabling a debate on this incredibly important matter. I congratulate her on smashing through dozens of anatomical taboos in such a splendid fashion in her extremely important opening remarks.
I believe that, as has been discussed today, the problem statement under debate is very clear—Nadine Dorries said it in another place earlier today, and it was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull: for generations, women have lived with a health and care system that is mostly designed by men for men. That is the problem. As a result, despite making up 51% of the population, women have been underrepresented in research, face damaging taboos about their health and, despite living longer than men, spend a greater proportion of their lives in ill health and with disabilities. For these reasons, there has never been a better time to put an emphasis on women’s health.
So I am extremely pleased that, on International Women’s Day, the Minister of State for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health announced in another place the launch of the women’s health strategy for England. As noble Lords have mentioned, it asked for responses across six themes, and I think it is worth mentioning them, because they are the architecture of how we will approach this strategy. The first is
“Placing women’s voices at the centre of their health and care”;
the second is
“Improving the quality and accessibility of information and education on women’s health”;
the third is
“Ensuring the … system understands and is responsive to women’s health and care needs across the life course”,
and this was so articulately explained by my noble friend; the fourth is
“Maximising women’s health in the workplace”;
the fifth is
“Ensuring research, evidence and data support improvements in women’s health”,
as was explained very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and the sixth is
“Understanding and responding to the impacts of COVID-19”.
As has been mentioned, we had 112,000 submissions, which is an absolutely remarkable number and speaks well of the engagement that has gone on around this important issue. There have also been focus groups, and departmental Ministers have led a number of engagement exercises. I was delighted to chair two very important and revealing round tables and a series of one-to-ones with leading women in healthcare. This engagement is why we launched the call for evidence in the first place.
There are a number of challenges that cut across the area of women’s health, and I will mention two or three of them. We have a world-class research and development system in the UK, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quite rightly pointed out, we know that women have been underrepresented in research and clinical trials, particularly women from ethnic minorities—as the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, pointed out—older women, women of child-bearing age, women with disabilities and LGBT women.
Women are not a homogenous group, and research must continue to understand and tackle specific dimensions of inequality to ensure equitable health outcomes across the population. While researchers and regulators have historically believed this to be good for women and babies, largely due to legitimate concerns about potential risks to an unborn child, too often women have been excluded from these discussions and have not been given the choice to participate in trials and studies. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie: we absolutely must work hard to change this and give women the choice to partake in clinical trials.
I will say a word about women’s conditions that are not being researched enough, which was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She is entirely right: there are still too many conditions about which we know too little. A key example of this is endometriosis, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her personal testimony. A number of noble Lords have articulated the key fact that it takes seven to eight years for a diagnosis, with 40% of women needing 10 or more GP appointments before being referred to a specialist. If it was a man, I fear that it would be very different indeed. Menopause, mentioned by my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lady Altmann, is another good example of this.
This lack of understanding of female conditions has implications for the health and care that women receive. Data is key and data saves lives—I am a big believer in that. To reassure my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, that is why
“Ensuring research, evidence and data support improvements in women’s health”
was one of the key themes of the call for evidence, and it will be a key theme of the strategy going forward. I completely agree with my noble friend that we must work hard to ensure that women, and women’s health issues, are included in research and data collection, finally ending the gender data gap that sadly exists.
Men are too often the default, and we do not know enough about the conditions that manifest differently in men and women. This can and does lead to poorer health outcomes, as vividly explained by my noble friend—I think it was Lady Bottomley; I cannot read my own writing. A University of Leeds study showed that women with a total blockage of a coronary artery were 59% more likely to be misdiagnosed than men and found that UK women had more than double the rate of death in the 30 days following a heart attack. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: this just is not good enough. I would be glad to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, to discuss the issue of mixed wards.
Too often, women are not listened to, and unfortunately we see this at all levels of the healthcare system, whether it be reports of women having their pain ignored during gynaecological procedures—such as IUD fittings or hysteroscopies—or the sobering findings from independent reports such as the Cumberlege review or the Paterson inquiry. One of the driving forces behind the decision to launch a women’s health strategy was the findings of the Cumberlege review; this is one of the manifestations of our response. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend for her work on this report and to many others in the House who have championed its work. The report powerfully highlights how the system did not listen to women. I am aware that today is the review’s first anniversary, and a debate has just taken place in another place to mark the occasion.
The Written Ministerial Statement of 11 January provided an update to Parliament. This included that the department had accepted the report’s flagship recommendation: the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. We also announced in this Statement that we had accepted recommendations concerning specialist mesh centres, MHRA reform and the establishment of a medical devices information system. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan and Lady Brinton, and others who asked that we are carefully considering the remaining recommendations and 50 actions for improvement. It is imperative, for the sake of patients and especially those who have suffered greatly, that we give this independent report the full consideration it deserves. In the January Statement, we announced that we would establish a patient reference group to work alongside the department to develop a full response. I am happy to confirm that the group was established earlier this year and has been working closely with officials to consider the report’s recommendations. I can assure Members that we will publish a comprehensive government response later this year.
On a positive note, can I say a few words about the good things that are happening in this area? The National Institute for Health Research is actively seeking to improve participation of underrepresented groups, and I would like to highlight the work of the NIHR INCLUDE programme. INCLUDE provides a design framework for clinical research proposals and gives examples of good practices and resources. The move towards virtual trials, due mainly to the pandemic, will accelerate that. The NIHR funds a wealth of research on women’s health and their outcomes. A couple of examples are the recently funded £2 million trial on endometriosis and the Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care.
On long Covid, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: this is a gender challenge. The statistics are quite clear about that. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are doing everything we can to listen to and learn from all those suffering from the long-term effects of Covid, including women. I have heard first-hand the insights and experiences of people living with this new and debilitating condition. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is right: long Covid is a new challenge for healthcare systems around the world. I am proud that the UK is leading the way on excellent research, treatment and care. We are investing heavily in research. REACT Long COVID—REACT-LC—aims to better understand the genetic, biological, social and environmental signatures and pathways for long Covid. Through its efforts, supported by £50 million of research funding, we are learning more every day about long Covid. We have 89 new specialist assessment centres opening up around the country, and they are having a huge impact.
I will say a word about maternity services. The Government are committed to reducing inequalities in health outcomes and experiences of care. This was articulated very persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. In September 2020, the Minister for Patient Safety established the Maternity Inequalities Oversight Forum to bring together experts to address the inequalities for women and babies from different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups. We are working to ensure that, by 2024, 75% of black and Asian women, and a similar proportion of women who live in the most deprived areas, will receive continuity of care from their midwife throughout pregnancy, labour and the postnatal period.
Maternal healthcare is absolutely critical, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, rightly alluded to, and maternal mental health has been neglected. Five years ago, 40% of the country had no access to specialist perinatal mental health care. I am proud to say, in response to the questions on training from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that there are now specialist community perinatal mental health services in every CCG area in England, with more than 700 specialist front-line staff recruited in the last two years. We are committed to transforming specialist perinatal mental health services across England.
By way of winding up, and on a personal note, I will point to my own experiences in this area and tell the story of my mother, who was hard hit by postnatal depression. It is a condition that we now recognise to affect 15% of mothers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said. In the days when I was born, this condition was neither diagnosed nor treated. My mother developed mental illnesses, drug addiction and alcoholism, and was therefore stigmatised by the healthcare system and separated from her children by the courts. Her treatments were barbaric, including electric shock treatment and drugs that made her bloated and sick. She had a relationship with her GP—something that would absolutely not be tolerated now and did nothing to help her then. No one listened to her, the diagnosis was flawed and the treatments were medieval. The system abused her, and she passed away in her bath. I think it is fair to say that she died of being a woman. It had a profound effect on me, and I would not want that to happen to any woman or child again.
Those times have largely passed. The world has got better, but it has not changed enough. That is why my noble friend Lady Jenkin’s debate is so important: it demonstrates that the outline of the problem definition is very clear. It is why this consultation is so important: it ensures that we really have all the details from the people whose voices have not been heard. It is why this women’s health strategy is so important: it will give us a common plan to do something about a problem that has dogged our healthcare system for too long.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and used such a wide variety of their experience to educate us and to plead their different causes—particularly the seven male noble Lords who have supported us. I rather like the idea of it being the seven ages of woman; I will stick with that one. I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister, not only for his comprehensive reply to us today but for his deeply moving description of his and his mother’s experiences. I challenge anyone not to have a lump in their throat hearing this very moving story. He has always been a great supporter of women and of the causes I have supported, and I am extremely grateful to him for that.
I will touch on a couple of the topics we have discussed; they have all been run through by other noble Lords. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I have participated in a clinical trial; it happened to be about endometriosis. I have no idea whether the drug we were testing is currently on the market, but it was a very long time ago so the answer is probably not yet. One of the lessons Covid has perhaps taught us is that clinical trials can be sped through and happen more quickly than we originally thought. I am very glad that other noble Lords raised this as an issue.
A number of noble Lords talked about mental health. The fact that so many people talked about it made us aware of what a big issue it is. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is not with us today, I suspect that a large number of people—probably more people than are listening to this debate—heard her on the radio this morning. I was very struck by the dignity of the victims: the mother of one victim spoke particularly eloquently and with such dignity about her experience.
A number of noble Lords talked about Sir Michael Marmot and his work on inequality. It is a massive wake-up call for all of us, and the theme of inequality is so clear in the work that he does. It is tempting to think that this debate has been a rather miserable litany of bad experiences, but I think it was my noble friend Lady Bottomley who said—as the Minister has just said—that there have been massive improvements in so many areas. We must not forget that.
I return to the point I mentioned at the beginning. I changed my usual topic of International Women’s Day, but the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, raised the hideous plight of so many women across the world. We must remember to count our blessings that we live in such a wonderful country, where we have access to healthcare that is so much better than in so many places across the world.
I will end by again wishing my noble friend Lady Penn good luck. With her typical efficiency, she is actually due on the day we rise, two weeks today—and with her typical efficiency, she will probably have the baby on that day or the day after.
I know the Government are serious about this agenda, and they know that we will be watching them.
Licensing Act 2003 (2020 UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 July be approved.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order is to extend licensing powers on Sunday, the day of the Euro 2020 final, to 11.15 pm. I am aware that this House is all that stands between football coming home and the public’s enjoyment of that in their local.
I begin by apologising for the haste in which this measure has been introduced, and the fact that in the time available it has not been possible to complete all the normal procedures and secure the prior scrutiny that the relevant committees would normally give to such an instrument. I regret that, and I assure noble Lords that we mean no discourtesy to the House or the normal procedures. That we have had to proceed in this way is a recognition of the speed with which tournament football moves. It is also a recognition of the fact that this tournament has captured the public imagination, and that it has been successfully hosted, with more games in the UK than anywhere else, despite the pandemic, is certainly a cause for celebration.
I hope I can also reassure noble Lords that this is a very modest instrument with a single, limited purpose. It extends licensing hours in England and Wales on 11 July 2021, the day of the final, to 11.15 pm. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national, or local significance.”
The Government consider that England hosting the final of Euro 2020 is an event of exceptional international significance, which many people will want to watch live and celebrate together.
There is a very important practical point. We want to make sure that people can enjoy the concluding game in its entirety. It is possible that the final, like several games in the tournament so far, will go to extra time and penalties, pushing the finishing time back. It would be incredibly unfortunate if people were unable to watch the game in full, and I would certainly not want to be the landlord required to empty his pub just as the penalty shoot-out was about to begin—I do not want to be the Minister who would do that either. The instrument presented today ensures there is no possibility of that being required.
We also want to help the licensing industry after what has been an incredibly difficult 18 months. The order only extends licensing hours and makes no changes to the existing Covid regulations. Just as has been the case throughout the pandemic, we will expect the licensed sector to be responsible in ensuring that these regulations are upheld.
The British Beer and Pub Association, alongside the British Institute of Innkeeping, UKHospitality, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Local Government Association, has developed guidance for licensees screening the Euro 2020 tournament. It is intended to help licensed venues, licensing authorities and the police to work together to create a safe environment for customers and staff.
In the time available, we have conducted the consultation required by statute in a truncated but effective way. The overwhelming majority of those to whom we have spoken are supportive. I will not disguise that the police have concerns, but they recognise why the Government have chosen to proceed in this way.
I hope all sides of your Lordships’ House will support this order to help the nation celebrate the final on Sunday as the hosting nation. It is a short and simple measure designed to ensure that on Sunday, the whole nation can enjoy a fitting end to a great celebration of sport. Its purpose is clear, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for explaining the measure before the House and congratulate England on their win against Denmark yesterday. As a neutral observer from Wales, I concluded at the end of the game that England were the better team. However, it was so unfortunate that individual supporters let them down and that there is now a complaint to UEFA that a laser pen was used to try to blind the Danish goalkeeper when that rather dubious penalty was taken. This is most unfortunate and does not reflect well on English fans.
I hope that Cardiff and Edinburgh will pass similar legislation to expand licensing hours. After all, we have a large number of Italians in Glasgow and in the valleys, and they are entitled to their alternative celebration too.
On a serious note, I echo the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, at Question Time today about the possibility of domestic abuse following a game. It so happens that my daughter-in-law, Jodie Swallow, made a study of the interplay between domestic violence and sports events. It was her PhD thesis. She concluded that perpetrators use abuse, violence and coercive behaviour around their sporting interests as a means of asserting their power and subjugating their partners. She identified a significant danger. Wives and sweethearts should look out if England lose.
It is the most intense match for 55 years. You have to be as old as me to remember the last time England were in the final in 1966. I remember it well on black and white television. Of course, that was against Germany. For the last win against Italy in a competition on English soil you have to back in history to when Boudicca sacked Colchester. It would be quite appropriate for a statue of Gareth Southgate to be placed next to hers on Westminster Bridge if England can repeat her victory.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I declare my football interests as set out in the register and, not surprisingly, congratulate the England team on their truly magnificent achievements and the pleasure they have given to so many millions of our fellow citizens.
The Government justify this order on the grounds that Sunday’s final is an occasion of exceptional national significance for the purposes of Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, given the achievements of the England football team and the United Kingdom’s successful hosting of the tournament in exception circumstances. Licensed premises will be able to remain open until 11.15 pm on Sunday for the sale of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment. Does the extension until 11.15 pm mean that premises have to close by 11.15 pm, or that they can remain open later but are not able to sell alcohol or have regulated entertainment after 11.15pm?
Consultation took place on Tuesday this week with “selected partners”. Who did that include beyond the police and local government representative bodies, including public health and the hospitality industry mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum? Apart from the police, did any other consultees have any reservations or caveats, or perhaps have no firm view one way or the other?
The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on football opposed the changes on the grounds of risk of increased public disorder and resulting demands on policing. However, on balance, notwithstanding that feedback, the Government considered the extension of hours appropriate, limited in duration to one day only and the importance of marking this event of exceptional national significance. The Government felt that this event could be marked by an extension of licensing hours but were other options for marking Sunday’s event considered and, if so, what were they?
Earlier today, as the Minister will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, speaking for the Government, reminded the House that domestic abuse violence increases after big matches and that to many people the words “coming home” represent not a footballing hope but a threat—and a violent threat at that. Have the Government increased support for domestic violence services and the police while the tournament has been taking place?
It appears to have been left a little late in the day to proceed with this order, which was presumably not dependent on the welcome result of the match last night, given that the consultation, such as it was, took place on Tuesday. Were the Government always anticipating extending the licensing hours for the final, in which case could this order have not been tabled sooner to give those affected more notice and to avoid a parliamentary rush?
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the terms of this order on the number of cases of the latest variant, which have been rising? Can we take it that the medical and scientific advice that the Government presumably sought and received is not expressing any real concern about the impact of extending licensing hours on Sunday?
We support the terms of the order, and hope that the Government have thought it through properly and have credible reasons, which have not been spelt out in the Explanatory Memorandum, for being satisfied that any adverse impacts will be minimal and far outweighed by the benefits. We wish England every success on Sunday night and look forward to a night for us all to remember, irrespective of whether we will be taking advantage of the extension of licensing hours.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. I join both of them in expressing concern for the effect that events like this have on domestic violence, and it is certainly something that the police will be alert to. It is not just this football game; any football game seems to be a time of escalation of domestic violence. I totally understand the points that the noble Lords are making and, yes, the police and support services are fully aware of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned the appalling incident with a laser pen. I have already asked about this and I understand that the police are investigating it. He mentioned that he hopes that Cardiff and Edinburgh will be passing similar regulations. The order applies of course to Wales but I am sure that Edinburgh will be considering it as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about 11.15 pm and if it was kicking-out time or last-sale time. It is the last-sale time—alcohol of any description cannot be served after that time. In terms of other consultees, I know that the British Beer and Pub Association alongside the British Institute of Innkeeping, UKHospitality, the NPCC, which he mentioned, and the Local Government Association were consulted
I apologise for the late laying of the instrument, as I said at the beginning. The remarkable progress England has made throughout the tournament has surprised and delighted even Government Ministers. It has served to bring the question of a licensing extension into focus. We could not really have foreseen—of course we had every confidence in them—how the England team would progress or just how successful this tournament has been, not least for the well-being of this country. I am sure noble Lords agree.
The order changes nothing about the current Covid rules; they are still in place. Clearly, 19 July will see a change, but for the moment everything that was in place before Sunday will still be in place on Sunday. I thank noble Lords for their questions. Football’s coming home.
Covid-19: Education Settings
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, once again I want to pay tribute to all education staff, pupils and parents, who have done so much over the past 16 months to ensure that children and young people were able to have as much learning as was possible in the most trying of circumstances.
Last week, in a repeat of an Urgent Question in your Lordships’ House, I asked the Minister to confirm that parents, pupils and teachers would know what was to happen in September to school bubbles, before this term ends, allowing school leaders time to put plans in place and give their staff a desperately needed break over the summer. Naturally, it is satisfying that the Government responded to my personal plea with a Statement made by the Secretary of State two days ago, but only up to a point.
The main restrictions on education and childcare are ending with effect from 19 July. With more than 640,000 children in England absent from school last week due to Covid, whether that is the right thing to do, just days before the school year ends, is questionable. The summer holidays act as a natural circuit breaker, and surely it would have been preferable to use that as the end point for restrictions that were unhelpful for learning but were necessary to minimise the spread of Covid.
The Government have been desperate to do something—anything—to meet the clamour from many of their MPs and their supporters in the media, but the new Health Secretary was candid in his admission, a few days ago, that England was entering what he termed as “uncharted territory” in its wholesale scrapping of lockdown rules from 19 July. New infections could easily rise above 100,000 a day over the summer, he said—more than at any point in the pandemic. The concern felt by many parents and children, at the sweeping away of the current system for containing Covid outbreaks in schools, colleges and nurseries, is understandable.
The Statement says that by 19 July, grouping pupils into protective bubbles within schools, colleges and nurseries in England will no longer be required, along with several other preventive measures. The use of self-isolation for children with close contacts will end in mid-August. Last week, when I invited the Minister to explain why secondary pupils had no longer been required to wear masks in classrooms from mid-May, at a time when cases were rising and masks still had to be worn in shops and indoor spaces, she replied it was done on the advice of Public Health England. Is that also the basis of the Government’s latest guidance removing requirements such as staggered school start and finish times, social distancing and the recommendations for the wearing of masks in communal areas, and—where bubbles have never been able to be enforced—on school transport? If so, will the Government publish the data that informed those decisions?
Doing away with bubbles from 19 July means more schools will have just a few days before the end of term. Many, I suspect, will feel it is not worth changing until the new term. Of course, by then some will already have begun their summer holidays. When the Secretary of State delivered the Statement in another place on Tuesday, he was asked several questions by my colleague Kate Green MP. Not many received a response, so I will repeat some and offer the Minister the opportunity of addressing these issues.
The DfE has run pilots using testing instead of the bubble system in schools, but that was not mentioned in the Statement. What were the results of the pilot, using daily testing in some schools? Did this mean more hours in the classroom? Did it result in more cases being detected? If the JCVI does propose vaccinating older children, is the Minister confident that the necessary infrastructure to begin that process will be in place before schools return in September?
Also, with regard to exams in 2022, the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that mitigations would be put in place to take account of the fact that many children, facing exams in the forthcoming academic year, particularly year 10, had missed a great deal of school over the past year. What sort of mitigation has been considered by the DfE to support children caught in that situation? Given the chaos and confusion that reigned both last year and this year, those young people deserve to know, when they arrive for the new term, what format of exam system they will face.
Our aim with these questions is not to catch the Government out. We genuinely want pupils to return to school after their summer break knowing what to expect, and for their parents to have confidence that sensible and effective measures to keep everyone as safe as possible from a further spread of Covid are in place. I look to the Minister for reassurance that that is not too much to ask.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add my thanks to all those teachers and support staff, children and young people. I am surprised that this is being done now and we have not waited until the beginning of the autumn term, which is literally only a few days away.
The Minister’s Statement is made against a backdrop of rising cases. School outbreaks are up to the highest level all year and rising sharply. Children, of course, remain unvaccinated, at risk of transmitting the virus and suffering from long Covid themselves. The Government have consistently claimed to be following the scientific advice before making decisions. Will the Minister publish the results of their trials on daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation?
We now know so much more about Covid-19 than we did a year ago, yet the Government are not learning lessons from either the knowledge that we have gained about the virus or the effective measures taken in different countries. We know that airborne transmission is the main way that Covid-19 is spreading. Countries such as Germany have invested in upgrading air-conditioning units and providing mobile purifiers. What are the Government here doing to improve ventilation in our schools?
In the Statement, the Minister says that education settings
“will continue to have a role in working with health protection teams in the case of a local outbreak. Where necessary, some measures may need to be reintroduced.”
What are the measures that will be reintroduced? The Minister says that, in classrooms or communal areas, face masks and social distancing will no longer be required. Does that include whole-school assemblies, or the daily act of worship in Church schools?
The requirement for a staggered start and finish time for schools and colleges can continue until the end of the summer term if schools wish. Is it sensible to have hundreds of children and students leaving schools and colleges at the same time, with, for younger children, hundreds of parents at the school gates to meet them? What is the scientific advice to stop staggering school start and finish times? If a school wishes to continue staggering the start and finish of its school day, can it do so?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I want to see as many children in school as possible and I want to see children and staff safe. The Statement is not a plan to deal with Covid-19 in our schools; it is lettered with instances of “maybe”, “we should” or “we advise schools to”. It ends with these words:
“children and young people will be able to get on with their education and lives”.
But if Covid is ripping through our schools, colleges and universities, there will be no “getting on with their lives”; in fact, we are putting their lives at risk. I fear that this is playing Covid roulette with our children and young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, for their thanks to the hundreds of thousands of teachers and support staff, and for the work of parents who have been home-educating during this time, to see our children come to the end of term.
To deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about why we have not left all this until the end of term, the Government made it clear that schools should be in line with other public health restrictions, so that they were neither more nor less restricted, based on the scientific evidence. The release of restrictions in line with step 4 is the point at which to change the situation for schools. Also, as the noble Lord later outlined correctly, there is no one date on which schools break up, so that would have meant different dates in different parts of the country. I believe that schools start breaking up tomorrow and that the finish date is 28 July. The fact that this is in line with step 4 will mean that it is a consistent date with the other restrictions being released in our country.
Regarding the situation of school attendance as of 1 July, 83.4% of children were actually in school at that time. On the levels of disease that we are seeing in the population, that is why the department Ministers, Nick Gibb and Gillian Keegan, wrote to schools and colleges last Monday to outline the situation on school activities over the summer—summer schools and other out-of-school settings that use their buildings. Testing for those purposes will continue over the summer, but most pupils, who will have been out of school, will not be subject to testing over the summer. That is one of the main reasons why we have made it clear to schools that they should set up the ATS at the beginning of the autumn term and that, up to three days before term begins, they can begin the two lateral flow tests for secondary age pupils, primary staff and secondary staff. They will not have been tested over the summer period, of course. This is the action that we are taking to take account of the level of disease in the population at the moment. There are obviously some controls, and we have given guidance to schools and colleges that they should leave in place the regular cleaning, handwashing and ensuring that inside spaces are well ventilated, leaving doors and windows open as appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised school transport. Again, we are bringing that advice in line with the situation as it will be for the population in England on 19 July, which is that it will be a matter of choice whether to use face coverings on public transport. That will be the same for dedicated school transport.
On the specific questions that the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, raised about the daily contact testing pilot, over 200 secondary schools and colleges participated in the independently monitored, voluntary trial, which was given approval by Public Health England’s independent research ethics and governance group. The trial concluded only on 25 June, so its findings are expected shortly. Those findings will need to be evaluated before any decisions can be made by government on how DCT can be used, if at all.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about vaccination infrastructure, no decisions have been made yet on whether young people from the ages of 12 to 17 should be routinely offered a Covid-19 vaccination or how this should be implemented. The MHRA has licensed two vaccines for that age group, but then it is a separate decision for the JCVI about whether there should be routine vaccination. We have asked the JCVI to advise whether it should be offered to young people aged 12 to 17; we will be guided by those experts’ advice and provide an update in due course.
We have already confirmed that exams and vocational and technical qualification assessments will go ahead next year. We recognise that students taking those examinations have had significant disruption to their education and we are considering with Ofqual what we need to do to ensure that the grades students receive for exams next year are fair. We understand the need for the education sector to have certainty and we will announce further details shortly.
Regarding the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the prevalence of the disease, the strategy is clear that those who have been most at risk from the disease will have been offered the vaccination and a large proportion of the population will be double-vaccinated. On his specific questions about ventilation, we are doing a pilot study with Public Health England and SAGE to look at CO2 levels in our classrooms. Obviously, when we have the results of that we will update your Lordships’ House. It is still within the guidance to schools about how they should manage those spaces, but we envisage that music lessons in all forms, assemblies and collective religious worship will be back in schools without restrictions.
We also want to give schools and children back their freedoms, in line with those that will be given to the population in step 4. In terms of the risk to the population as a whole, those who are most at risk from the disease will have been offered the double vaccination. We have of course asked schools to have contingency plans and have updated the guidance on them, should there be an outbreak either in that school or in an area of the country where there is a particularly high prevalence of disease, outlining whether further restrictions should be in place. There will be individual circumstances around whether bubbles or masks are reintroduced, but all that is to be balanced with the particular circumstances of any outbreak, and bearing in mind that we now know the effects that having to be in bubbles or wear masks has on children’s education.
One of the few silver linings of the cloud that has been over us in Covid—I must take issue with the concluding statement of the noble Lord, Lord Storey—and something for which we can be grateful is that the evidence has been consistently clear that overwhelmingly children do not get this disease seriously, unlike the older members of the population. That is why the vaccination programme has gone down the age ranges, including in the beginning NHS and social care staff. We must be really grateful for that, and we look forward to seeing our children back in school without these restrictions as of 19 July.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I call the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, suggested earlier today, face masks work, and they work well. Studies show that they stop up to 80% of droplets escaping and 50% of those inhaled and, according to a new Addenbrooke’s study, FFP3 masks can afford up to 100% protection. So are the Government really convinced they are doing the right thing this week in not advising their use in schools at all from September if cases are rising fast and the greatest transmission is among the unvaccinated young?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we have outlined some of the details that the noble Earl outlined on personal protective equipment. In relation to the advice that it will not be necessary to use masks in schools as of 19 July, that is in accordance with step 4, which is based on the best scientific advice we have. There is no absolute certainty in any of these decisions, particularly in schools. Wearing masks has never been a requirement for primary-age children, because they affect children’s experience of education and cause difficulties. We are as clear as we can be, being human beings making decisions, that, for balance, as the right honourable Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, in terms of mental health and well-being, this is the stage at which to take this step. Schools will be in line with what we are expecting of other people. We will not restrict school pupils more or less than the general population.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Government use the summer holidays to see whether they can revive the relationship with the head teachers’ unions, review the guidance with them and evolve a plan B for use in the event that it becomes necessary to bear down on transmission in schools, so that schools know what will be expected of them if that happens? Will the DfE also produce a template advice leaflet for schools, so that schools can give advice to parents when children return to school?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Lord is correct. Engaging with unions and head teachers has been an important part of what the department has done over these times. The guidance we have issued has been in consultation, through regular meetings at official and ministerial level, to produce the best guidance we can. As I have outlined, we have issued guidance for an updated contingency plan for what might be expected of schools if they were in an area where a new variant of concern was prevalent or there was a local outbreak.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is alas clear that the impact of Covid-19 will continue to be felt in schools and colleges well into the next academic year. All possible steps must be taken to mitigate these effects, in an attempt to avoid children and young people missing education. There is also the worry that rising cases in schools increase the risk of mutations. As inhalation of coronavirus is a major transmission route, with aerosol containing infectious virus able to travel more than two metres and accumulate in poorly ventilated spaces, practical action is needed.
In another place, the Secretary of State referred to enhanced ventilation. Last autumn term that meant many children and teachers working in coats, hats and gloves as their classroom windows were kept wide open, while many others worked in classrooms with windows that did not open at all. However, the provision of CO2 monitors, as the Minister referenced, and air filtration devices where necessary following a risk assessment could maintain adequate ventilation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Does the noble Baroness have a question? I am sorry to intervene.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
Yes—will the Government provide sufficient funds to ensure that all schools can avail themselves of CO2 monitors and air purifiers?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
To reassure the noble Baroness, I say that this is precisely why we have the pilot with Public Health England and SAGE; it is to look at CO2 levels in classrooms. When we have the results of that, we will update any guidance accordingly.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, how will the Government support further education colleges to continue to provide blended and online learning to students needing to stay at home due to illness, infection or self-isolation when a family member has tested positive? There will clearly still be individual student absences, even when entire bubbles no longer have to isolate. With the additional support needed for students resitting English and maths GCSEs due to the disruption caused by the pandemic, what plans do the Government have to introduce a 16 to 19 pupil premium for disadvantaged students in further education and other settings?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
On disadvantaged students, this is precisely why we have made free school meals available in those settings. There is also a bursary fund that FE college staff distribute. Even in the first lockdown, FE colleges showed themselves to be some of the most adept at adjusting to remote learning. We have made it clear to colleges and schools that they need remote provision for the next academic year.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. Do the Government recognise the challenge they are setting universities in particular when they recommend in their guidance that face coverings will no longer be required for students, staff and visitors in either teaching and learning environments or communal areas? Many young people starting university will have only just had their first jab and be quite a number of weeks away from the second, not to mention the three-week incubation period before full immunity sets in.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we are confident in the timing. On 18 June, we opened up vaccinations to anybody over the age of 18, with many walk-in clinics. We saw a helpful surge on the website, when those who wanted to book their jabs did so. We have offered vaccinations to adults so, as we brought forward the period before the second dose of the vaccine to eight weeks, if they took it in the middle of June then by the time universities go back in mid to late September, in the period the noble Baroness outlines, a very high proportion of those young adults will have the full protection of the vaccine if they have acted expeditiously. We are encouraging higher education institutions to look at having some pop-up vaccination centres. Any responsible young adult who goes to university and is any way concerned about not having had their second jab can take the appropriate personal responsibility for their own health.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, reflected on the extensive efforts made in Germany to improve ventilation in schools, on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said in your Lordships’ House that “aerosols remain in the air for a long time”. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, also highlighted this issue. The Government have been very slow and, I suggest, still inadequate in informing the public of this risk and of the importance of ventilation. I note that, in her answers to the Front-Bench questions, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, the Minister talked about providing information based on the pilots that are just getting going, late in the day. But will there be funding for action on ventilation, particularly where work might be done over the summer holidays, often in new buildings that are without windows that open?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we have been clear about the risk of aerosol transmission. That is why there was specific guidance right from, I believe, the first lockdown in relation to children attending special schools and the rules on social distancing. As I have outlined to noble Lords, we are awaiting the results of the pilot and we made funding available, in two application tranches, to deal with certain increased costs for cleaning and other additional costs that schools and colleges had as a result of the pandemic.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow noble Lords who have spoken with so much wisdom, and I thank the Minister for the Statement. At the outset, I want to acknowledge formally and thank Ms Davies from Mulberry school, which is my local school. She has been helping thousands of children—400 children and their families—every single week for the past six months.
A number of parents have written to me saying that they have received letters threatening punitive fines and other actions for children missing school, either due to Covid or long Covid symptoms. Can the Minister assure me that parents will not be punitively fined and punished for any such reasons? My second point is that, as we approach the summer, can the Minister give details of the government plan to support children with the provision of breakfast and lunch, in addition to providing essential IT equipment and broadband access? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the gaps, particularly among children who are already disfranchised—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is taking longer than other noble Lords, who have been very restrained in their questions.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
I have nearly finished, thank you. These children are marginalised as a result of inequalities, poor health, poverty and poor-quality housing. Will the Government ensure adequate planning for their education needs, as well as their well-being?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I join the noble Baroness in thanking the staff at the school she mentioned. We know that many have gone above and beyond, particularly in supporting disadvantaged children in their community. Dropping food parcels and workbooks at the door has been pretty commonplace for many of our school staff, which is amazing.
Upon the return of schools, attendance has been compulsory but we have given specific guidance to schools if they have pupils absent due to parents or carers being concerned about Covid, or about their own health if they are clinically extremely vulnerable. In fact, there is a particular X to mark in the reasons for non-attendance. We hope that schools have encouraged parents to keep their children on the school roll in that situation, because we are concerned to see the rise in the numbers of children being electively home-educated in these circumstances—obviously, many parents do that job really well. On breakfast clubs, I think we have provided funding of £24 million through Magic Breakfast and other charities to deliver breakfasts. Over this summer holiday, in addition to the summer schools there will be, as there have been since Easter, holiday and activity clubs operating in every local authority area for disadvantaged families.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all questions have now been asked.